The buffering effects of spirituality at work: an investigation of job stress, health … · 2017. 2. 15. · Job threat stress significantly predicted decreased well-being and increased

The buffering effects of spirituality at work: an investigation of job stress, health

and work-life practices amongst academics.

Amanda Suzanne Bell

Student Id: 2153610

Bachelor of Applied Science

Swinburne University of Technology

Co-ordinating Supervisor: Dr Diana Rajendran

Associate Supervisor: Dr Stephen Theiler

A thesis submitted in complete fulfilment of the degree of

Master of Business (by research)


February 2010

i

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the moderating effects of spirituality at work on job stress and

health (well-being and ill-being) amongst Australian academics based on a spiritual

appraisal model of stress and well-being. It also explored whether spirituality at work

moderated the relationship between job stress and work-life balance and work-life

conflict amongst Australian academics. A sample of 139 academic staff members

employed in Australian universities (higher education and TAFE) anonymously

completed a self-report questionnaire containing quantitative measures of spirituality at

work (individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality), health (well-being and

ill-being), work-life balance, work-life conflict and job stress (job threat stress and job

pressure stress). At the bivariate level, spirituality at work (individual, work-unit and

organisation-wide levels), well-being, ill-being, job threat stress and job pressure stress

correlated with each other. At the multivariate level however, each of the three levels of

spirituality at work did not moderate the influence of job threat and pressure stress on

both well-being or ill-being. Job threat stress significantly predicted decreased well-

being and increased ill-being, but job pressure stress was not predictive of health. Age

also significantly contributed to increased ill-being. At the bivariate level, all three

levels of spirituality at work, job threat stress, job pressure stress, work-life balance and

work-life conflict correlated with each other. Yet, at the multivariate level, spirituality

at work unsuccessfully moderated the influence of job threat and job pressure stress on

work-life balance and work-life conflict. Job threat stress and job pressure stress both

significantly predicted decreased work-life balance and increased work-life conflict.

The main effect of work-unit spirituality at work on work-life balance reached

significance. Theoretical implications and practical implications for Human Resource

Managers were discussed in terms of universities and businesses generally.

Specifically, it was suggested that universities and businesses alike consider

implementing stress management components into Human Resource Management

employee well-being programs and initiatives. It was also suggested that HRM

programs aimed at promoting work-life balance should integrate stress management and

work-unit spirituality at work.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Most importantly, I would like to express gratitude to Dr Diana Rajendran and Dr

Stephen Theiler for their guidance and patience in supervising this research project.

Special acknowledgement must be given to Judith Gregory for her professional

proofreading services. Extraordinary appreciation is bestowed upon Sharon Grant for

offering her statistical expertise and advice. Unique thanks must to given to my family,

friends and felines for providing emotional support during this stressful journey.

Particularly to Zoe for her advice and enthusiasm, and to Emily and Liz for inspiring

me. Also, Ben for his calming influence and Candy for her support and friendship.

Last, but not least, Midori, Sorcha and Maelgwyn for providing company during long

hours of study.

iii

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of

any other degree or diploma and to the best of my knowledge, this thesis contains no

material previously published or written by another person except where due reference

is made in the text of the thesis.

Amanda Suzanne Bell

The work undertaken for this project was approved by the Swinburne University of

Technology Human Research Ethics Committee on 15th

November 2007 (SUHREC

Project 0708/076).

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................II

DECLARATION.......................................................................................................... III

LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................VIII

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................X

CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1

1.0 Overview of Thesis .....................................................................................................1

1.1 Defining Spirituality at Work......................................................................................5

1.1.1 Individual Spirituality and Spirituality at Work...................................................5

1.1.2 Differentiation of Spirituality from Religion .....................................................10

1.2 Defining Job Stress and Well-Being .........................................................................12

1.3 Work-Life Balance and Work-Life Conflict .............................................................13

CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................16

LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................16

2.0 Overview of Literature Review.................................................................................16

2.1 The Trend Towards Spiritual Business Practices......................................................16

2.2 Relevance of Spirituality in Management Theory ....................................................23

2.3 Importance of Spirituality for HR Managers ............................................................27

2.4 Measuring Spirituality...............................................................................................31

2.5 Spirituality at Work Studies ......................................................................................36

v

2.5.1 Qualitative Spirituality at Work Studies.............................................................36

2.5.2 Quantitative Spirituality at Work Studies...........................................................38

2.5.3 Australian Spirituality at Work Studies..............................................................41

2.6 Spirituality, Stress, Well-Being and Ill-Being Research ...........................................43

2.6.1 Spirituality, Stress, Well-Being and Ill-Being Background ...............................43

2.6.2 Quantitative Measures of Stress and Well-Being...............................................48

2.6.3 Direct Effects of Spirituality and Religion on Well-Being and Stress ...............49

2.6.4 Investigating the Moderating Effects of Spirituality and Religion on Stress and

Well-Being ..................................................................................................................52

2.6.4.1 Religious-Based Spirituality Moderating Effects....................................52

2.6.4.2 Individual Spirituality Moderating Effects..............................................54

2.7 Spirituality, Stress, Work-Life Balance and Work-Life Conflict Research..............56

2.7.1 The Need for Work-Life Initiatives....................................................................56

2.7.2 Research on Work-Life Issues............................................................................57

2.7.3 Spirituality and Work-Life Issues ......................................................................60

2.8 Job Stress, Work-Life Practices, Well-Being, Ill-Being and Spirituality in

Universities......................................................................................................................63

2.8.1 The Increasing Stress of Academia Life ............................................................64

2.8.2 Work-Life Issues in Academia...........................................................................65

2.8.3 The Need for Spirituality in Academic Life.......................................................67

2.9 Summary of Chapter and Purpose of Present Study .................................................70

CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................75

AIMS AND HYPOTHESES.........................................................................................75

3.1 Aims and Hypotheses ................................................................................................75

3.2 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................76

vi

CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................78

METHOD.......................................................................................................................78

4.0 Overview of Method .................................................................................................78

4.1 Participants ................................................................................................................78

4.2 Measures....................................................................................................................79

4.2.1 Spirituality at Work (Moderator Variable).........................................................81

4.2.2 Job Stress (Independent Variable)......................................................................82

4.2.3 Well-Being and Ill-Being (Dependent Variables)..............................................83

4.2.4 Work-Life Balance (Dependent Variable) .........................................................84

4.2.5 Work-Life Conflict (Dependent Variable) .........................................................85

4.3 Procedure...................................................................................................................86

CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................88

RESULTS.......................................................................................................................88

5.0 Overview of Analyses ...............................................................................................88

5.1 Preliminary Data Screening and Assumption Testing ..............................................88

5.2 Work-life Balance Factor Analysis ...........................................................................92

5.3 Reliability and Bivariate Correlation Analyses.........................................................93

5.4 Main Analyses: Moderator Models ...........................................................................97

5.4.1 Moderator Models for Well-being and Ill-being................................................98

5.4.2 Moderator Models for Work-life Balance and Work-life Conflict ..................102

CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................107

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.........................................................................107

6.0 Overview of Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................107

6.1 Hypothesis (1): Moderator Models for Well-being and Ill-being ...........................107

6.1.1 Relevance to Direct Relationships between Spirituality, Stress and Well-being

vii

Evidenced in Previous Studies and Theory ...............................................................110

6.1.2 Relevance to Moderation Influences between Spirituality, Stress and Well-being

Evidenced in Previous Studies and Theory ...............................................................114

6.2 Hypothesis (2): Moderator Models for Work-life Balance and Work-life Conflict120

6.2.1 Consistency with Previous Theoretical Models ...............................................122

6.2.2 Consistency with Previous Studies...................................................................124

6.3 Implications of the Study ........................................................................................128

6.3.1 Implications for HR Managers and Academic Staff ........................................129

6.3.2 Theoretical Implications...................................................................................135

6.4 Limitations...............................................................................................................137

6.5 Suggestions for Future Research .............................................................................140

6.6 Conclusion...............................................................................................................144

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................146

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................173

Appendix A - Questionnaire..........................................................................................173

Appendix B - Ethics Approval ......................................................................................182

Appendix C - Detailed Participant Information ...........................................................184

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.2

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

Table 5.3

Table 5.4.1.1

Table 5.4.1.2

Table 5.4.2.1

Table 5.4.2.2

Study Variable Names and Classifications

Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Data

Screening

Exploratory Factor Analysis Loadings for Work-life

Balance Items

Reliability Coefficients and Bivariate Correlations

amongst Study Variables

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Job

Stress, Spirituality at Work and Well-being


Stress, Spirituality at Work and Ill-being when

Controlling for Age


Stress, Spirituality at Work and Work-life Balance


Stress, Spirituality at Work and Work-life Conflict

Page

80

90

93

94

99

101

103

105

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.6.1

Figure 2.9

Figure 5.4

Spiritual appraisal model

Moderation model of spirituality at work

Moderation model

Page

46

72

97

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GRCS-1

H-P

HR

HRM

EAP

EEO

IB

Ind SWS

KMO

MHSS-SF

Org SWS

WB

WLB

Wrk SWS

SHALOM

SlaM

SUHREC

TAFE

Gender-Role Conflict-I Scale

Hewlett-Packard

Human Resource

Human Resource Management

Employee Assistance Program

Equal Employment Opportunity

Ill-Being

Individual Spirituality at Work Scale

Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic

Multidimensional Health States Scale – Short Form

Organisation-Wide Spirituality at Work Scale

Well-Being

Work-Life Balance

Work unit Spirituality at Work Scale

Spiritual Health and Life-Orientation Measure

Spirituality, Leadership and Management

Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee

Technical and Further Education

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Everyone has been made for some particular work, and the desire for that work has

been put in every heart - Jalal ad-Din Rumi

Do not give up working, instructs Rumi; indeed, “the treasure which you seek derives

from it” - Idries Shah

1.0 Overview of Thesis

This introductory chapter will briefly outline previous research findings in the area of

spirituality at work in order to demonstrate the emerging importance of spirituality in

business today. To clearly describe what the concept of spirituality at work

encompasses, definitions of spirituality at work and its distinction from religion will

then be presented. This introductory chapter will then define the other major study

variables examined in the current study. Firstly, job stress and well-being will be

outlined and lastly, work-life balance and work-life conflict will be described.

Over the last fifteen years, interest in the area of spirituality in the workplace increased

substantially in commercial media, academic research, mainstream newspapers and

magazine articles, conferences and workshops (Biberman 2003; Harrington, Preziosi &

Gooden 2002; Marques, Dhiman & King 2005; Milliman, Czaplewski & Ferguson

2003). Academic research in the area of spirituality and health (mental and physical)

has also increased in popularity over the last fifteen years (e.g., Kass, Friedman,

Leserman, Zuttermeister & Benson 1991; Lustyk, Beam, Miller & Olson 2006; Oman,

Hedberg & Thoresen 2006; Ryan & Fiorito 2003). As such, many studies discussing

the conception and definition of spirituality have been published (e.g., Aupers &

Houtman 2006; Benson, Scales, Sesma & Roehlkepartain 2005; Pava 2007; Webster

2

2004). However, there was not a wide level of agreement on the definition of

spirituality at work, or spirituality at work models or measures (Dehler & Welsh 2003;

Gall, Charbonneau, Clarke, Grant, Joseph & Shouldice 2005; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz

2003b; Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2004; Tischler, Biberman & McKeage 2002).

Increased interest in the area of spirituality at work has occurred internationally in

predominantly Western countries, with many studies conducted in the United States of

America (e.g., Duchon & Plowman 2005), the United Kingdom (e.g., Ackers & Preston

1997) but few in Australia (e.g., Becker 2002). The majority of this literature has

attempted to describe what spirituality at work included and some studies gave

examples of spiritual workplaces (see Butts 1999; Cavanagh & Bandsuch 2002; Duffy

2006; Howard 2002; Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2004). The literature demonstrated little

consensus on what spirituality encompassed and proportionally, very few studies

empirically investigated the influences of spirituality at work on employee outcomes

(e.g., Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Becker 2002; Duchon & Plowman 2005; Kinjerski &

Skrypnek 2006; Milliman et al. 2003).

Studies on spirituality at work have predominantly sampled university business

students, or students from multiple academic disciplines, corporate workplaces, high

school teachers, hospital staff and other occupations (see Ashmos & Duchon 2000;

Becker 2002; Clark, Leedy, McDonald, Muller, Lamb, Mendez, Kim & Schonwetter

2007; Duchon & Plowman 2005). Very little research investigated spirituality among

tertiary educators (see Astin & Astin 1999).

There is also debate in the literature about whether spirituality is a separate construct to

religion. Some authors have proposed that spirituality consists of religious and spiritual

components (see Fabricatore, Handal & Fenzel 2000; Paloutzian & Ellison 1982;

Seidlitz, Abernethy, Duberstein, Evinger, Chang & Lewis 2002). Other researchers use

the term spirituality and religion interchangeably (see Butts 1999; Kinjerski & Skrypnek

2004). A third group of authors view spirituality and religion as distinct constructs (see

Cunha, Rego & D'Oliveira 2006; Duchon & Plowman 2005; Duffy 2006; Marques

2005; Marques et al. 2005).

3

Within the research that relates spirituality to religion, some authors describe spirituality

as non-specific to any particular religion, but still used the terms ‘God’, ‘prayer’ or

‘higher power’ (e.g., Ellison 1983; Fabricatore et al. 2000; Fisher 1999a; Kass et al.

1991; Paloutzian & Ellison 1982; Piedmont 1999; Seidlitz et al. 2002). These

definitions of spirituality were criticised by subsequent authors for using terms

associated with religion (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b;

Hatch, Burg, Naberhaus & Hellmich 1998; Milliman et al. 2003). Perhaps due to the

diversity in the definition of spirituality, a wide range of measures have been developed.

A methodological problem with numerous measures employed, was that individual

spirituality measures were used in spirituality at work research (Sass 2000). It is

therefore difficult to reach a firm consensus on research findings.

A large volume of previous research investigated individual spirituality, life stress and

health. Individual spirituality has repeatedly been found to predict better health and

lower levels of stress, particularly when spirituality was defined in non-religious terms

(see Calicchia & Graham 2006; Lustyk et al. 2006; Perrone, Webb, Wright, Jackson &

Ksiazak 2006; Powers, Cramer & Grubka 2007). Furthermore, studies have found that

individual spirituality was a moderator in the relationship between stress and well-being

and ill-being (e.g., Elam 2000; Hong 2008; Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002). However, to

date, little research has been conducted on spirituality at work and job stress, or on

spirituality at work and employee health (e.g., Becker 2002).

The overall aim of this study was to investigate empirically the influence of non-

religious spirituality at work on health (well-being and ill-being), job stress, work-life

balance and work-life conflict of Australian academic staff. Another research aim was

to measure spirituality in a work context, using a measure that was reliable and valid.

Based on past research criticisms (see Clark 2000; Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra &

Ironson 2001), it was an aim of this study to measure general job stress (not specific to a

particular occupation or stressor), and both work-life balance and work-life conflict as

separate constructs. Due to the variety of single health aspects studied previously, for

example, subjective well-being, affective well-being, psychological well-being, physical

symptoms (see Burke, Oberklaid & Burgess 2003; Karlsen, Dybdahl & Vitterso 2006;

Palliser, Firth, Feyer & Paulin 2005; Powers et al. 2007), it was a research objective to

4

measure health in terms of both physical and psychological states, and to measure both

positive and negative health states concurrently.

Based on previous research investigating moderators of individual spirituality, life stress

and health (e.g., Elam 2000; Ellison 1991; Hong 2008; Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002), and

spiritual appraisal theories of stress and health (e.g., Ellison 1991; Gall et al. 2005;

Hebert, Weinstein, Martire & Schulz 2006) it was an aim of this study to test whether

spirituality at work (individual, work-unit and organisation-wide) would buffer the

effect of job stress on well-being and ill-being. Previous research also linked work-life

balance and work-life conflict with stress (e.g., Greenhaus & Beutell 1985; Kinman &

Jones 2008; Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper & Ricketts 2005; Wallace 2005; Waltman &

Sullivan 2007; Wong & Lin 2007). Research also demonstrated a link between

spirituality at work and work-life balance (see Laabs 1995; Mitroff & Denton 1999b;

Sullivan & Mainiero 2008). As a result it was also an aim to investigate whether

spirituality at work (individual, work-unit and organisation-wide) would moderate the

effect of job stress on work-life balance and work-life conflict.

Academic teaching staff from a variety of faculties in both Higher Education and

Technical and Further Education (TAFE) divisions across Australian institutions

participated in the study. Data was collected anonymously via an online survey

consisting of demographic questions, a spirituality at work scale, a work-life balance

scale, a work-life conflict scale, a job stress scale and a health scale. Quantitative

statistical analyses such as Pearson R correlations, alpha reliabilities, factor analysis and

hierarchical regressions were used to analyse the data.

Chapter One of this thesis will discuss definitions of spirituality and spirituality at work

(and its distinction from religion), and other study variables (work-life balance, work-

life conflict, job stress, well-being and ill-being) will also be defined. The current

trends of spirituality at work will be outlined in Chapter Two, as well as how spirituality

is evident in the evolution of management perspectives over time. The importance of

incorporating spirituality into Human Resource Management (HRM) practices will be

then be outlined. Previous literature assessing different scales available to measure

spirituality and spirituality at work will be presented. Empirical research will also be

5

summarised to determine the nature of the relationships between spirituality at work,

work-life balance, work-life conflict, health and job stress. In particular, a

contemporary theory linking stress, well-being and spirituality will be outlined. The

small amount of literature specifically looking at academics, spirituality and relevant

HRM issues will also be outlined in Chapter Two.

Chapter Three will outline the current study’s aims, objectives, hypotheses and research

questions developed from the literature review. Chapter Four describes the study’s

methodology. A description of the sample recruited, scales used, and procedure

undertaken to collect the data will be detailed. The results of the study will be presented

in Chapter Five.

Chapter Six will discuss the results of this study in relation to previous research. It will

also conclude by detailing implications of the results, limitations of the current study

and recommendations for further research.

1.1 Defining Spirituality at Work

There were a number of definitions for spirituality at work in past literature. This

section will outline some of these definitions and demonstrate the lack of general

consensus about what authors described as ‘spirituality at work’. The following

subsections will describe spirituality and spirituality at work definitions discussed in

previous research. This will be followed by a description of how spirituality is viewed

as a distinct concept from religion.

1.1.1 Individual Spirituality and Spirituality at Work

A variety of terms have been used to describe spirituality at work. Many terms are

often used for what Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2006) describe as the same concept. For

example, ‘spirit at work’ (Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2004), ‘spirituality at work’ (Ashmos

& Duchon 2000; Butts 1999; Harris 2001), ‘spirituality in business’ (Konz & Francis

1999; Milliman, Ferguson, Trickett & Condemi 1999; Tischler 1999), ‘spirit in the

6

workplace’, ‘spirituality in the workplace’ (Burack 1999; Cash & Gray 2000; Freshman

1999; Marques 2005; Marques 2006; Mitroff & Denton 1999b; Neck & Milliman

1994), ‘spiritual wellness in the workplace’ (Ingersoll 2003) and ‘workplace

spirituality’ (Duchon & Plowman 2005; Harrington et al. 2002; Milliman et al. 2003)

Laabs (1995, p. 64) compared the act of defining spirituality to “capturing an angel –

it’s ethereal and beautiful, but perplex.” The existence of so many definitions and labels

used to describe the same concept perhaps can be attributed to the complex nature of

spirituality. Terms commonly discussed in relation to spirituality and spirituality at

work were the ‘soul’, ‘transcendence’ and ‘authenticity’. The soul was defined as the

“deepest essence of what it is to be human” (Mitroff & Denton 1999a, p. 5). The

transcendent, or process of transcendence, is described as that which is sacred (Hebert et

al. 2006). Authenticity refers to behaving consistently with one’s own beliefs and

values (Astin & Astin 1999). These terms were commonly used in defining aspects of

individual spirituality and spirituality at work.

A variety of definitions for spirituality at work have been discussed in previous

literature (Singhal 2005). The need for a consistent conceptual definition of spirituality

at work has been repeatedly raised in past research (see Dehler & Welsh 2003; Gall et

al. 2005; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b; Harrington et al. 2002; Kinjerski & Skrypnek

2004; Konz & Francis 1999; McCormick 1994; Milliman et al. 1999; Tischler et al.

2002). The lack of clarity in defining spirituality at work can be attributed to the

subjective and divine nature of individual spirituality (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b).

Spirituality means different things to different people (Cavanagh 1999; Laabs 1995;

Weston 2002). Several authors have even questioned whether spirituality at work can

be defined or critically evaluated (e.g., Inayatullah 2006; Laabs 1995; Mitroff & Denton

1999a; Sink 1999). Though, Milliman et al. (2003) claim to be among the first studies

to investigate spirituality at work empirically and critically. Also, adding to the lack of

agreement of what spirituality at work encompasses, researchers frequently generalise

the definition of individual spirituality to the workplace (Sass 2000).

As spirituality at work studies often used individual spirituality models and measures

extrapolated to the workplace setting, it is important to first define spirituality in a

7

general or individual context (Geroy 2005). Individual spirituality was described most

often as an internal state involving a sense of interconnectedness and finding meaning in

life. For example, Mitroff and Denton (1999b, p. 83) described individual spirituality as

where individuals felt connected with their “complete self”, their community and the

entire universe.

Mitroff and Denton (1999b) described individual spirituality as a concept that was

beyond religious denominations, embracing everyone, universal and timeless, awe

inspiring in the presence of the transcendent. Spirituality was also described as finding

the sacredness in the ordinariness of everyday life, feeling interconnected with

everything, having inner peace and calm, having an infinite source of faith and

willpower, and the belief that spirituality was the ultimate end in itself (Mitroff &

Denton 1999b). Stemming from this definition, spirituality at work, therefore, is the

degree to which spirituality is expressed in the behaviours, policies, values and

principles of an organisation (Dehler & Welsh 1994).

The lack of consistency in the existing conceptual definitions of spirituality at work was

evident. Singhal (2005) identified three themes underpinning spirituality at work

definitions in previous literature: integrity and wholeness; meaningful work; and larger

than oneself. Integrity and wholeness related to organisations fostering integration of

employees’ ‘whole-selves’ at work. Meaningful work referred to employees having a

greater desire to find meaning and purpose in the work they do. ‘Larger than oneself’

encompassed employees connecting with their community and a shared identity with

their organisations.

Some authors defined spirituality at work as a personal inner experience based on

interconnectedness and value alignment within themselves, within the work unit and

within the organisation as a whole (e.g., Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Harrington et al.

2002; Ingersoll 2003; McCormick 1994; Mitroff & Denton 1999b; Sass 2000). For

example, Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003b) defined spirituality at work as an

organisational culture that created complete and happy employees by fostering

employees’ experience of the transcendence and a sense connectedness to others.

Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2004, 2006) expanded on this perspective by describing

8

spirituality at work as a significant feeling of well-being, belief that work makes a

difference or contributes to common purpose, sense of interconnectedness to others and

something larger than oneself, and sense of perfection and transcendence.

Other authors contended that spirituality was an inner source of energy and that

spirituality at work was an outward expression of that force in the workplace (Dehler &

Welsh 2003; Pawar 2009). Geroy (2005) defined spirituality at work as an employee’s

internal essence of their being, that has evolved over time by experience and is shown

externally through work behaviour. Spirituality at work also involved compassion,

selfless service and meditative work (McCormick 1994). Ingersoll (2003) claimed that

spirituality at work involved mystery, being in the present, spiritual freedom,

forgiveness, hope, knowledge, learning, experience and ritual.

Spirituality at work was described by Ashmos and Duchon (2000) as an internal state of

being that is fostered by meaningful work and sense of community at work. Spirituality

at work is about experiencing a sense of purpose and finding personal meaning in work

beyond the type of meaning described in job design literature, which focuses on finding

meaning in the performance of work tasks (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Hackman &

Oldham 1975; Harrington et al. 2002; Sass 2000). Similarly, Byrne (2005) argues that

employees want and need to be part of a community in which they can make

meaningful contributions.

More recently, The Spirituality, Leadership and Management (SlaM) network (2007)

claimed that spirituality provided a sense of meaning, the possibility of personal

transformation and celebration of life. The network argued that spirituality expresses

unity; every person and every thing in our universe is ultimately connected. The SlaM

network contended that there are many paths to spiritual awareness and enlightenment.

Furthermore, harnessing and promoting spirituality in the workplace could bring about

positive changes for employees, the organisation and society.

An all encompassing model of spirituality at work was developed by Ashmos and

Duchon (2000), which described spirituality at work as involving three levels,

individual, work unit and organisation-wide. The individual level describes how much

9

an employee understands their own “divine” power and how it can help them to obtain a

satisfying internal and external life by finding individual meaning and purpose through

their work (Ashmos & Duchon 2000, pp. 135-136), and the extent to which an

employee enjoys and is energised by work (Milliman et al. 2003). The work unit

dimension entails how much employees have a sense of connection and community

with their colleagues and the extent to which those colleagues are caring and

encouraging (Ashmos & Duchon 2000) and are linked by a common purpose (Milliman

et al. 2003).

Organisation-wide spirituality at work is the extent to which an employee perceives a

good relationship with their organisation, and perceives that their own values and goals

align with their organisation’s (Ashmos & Duchon 2000). Having personal and

organisational values in alignment leads employees to be more effective and fulfilled

(Dehler & Welsh 2003; Laabs 1995). Spirituality at work is also characterised by

employees identifying with their organisation’s mission, and belonging to an

organisation which cares about its employees (Milliman et al. 2003).

Ashmos and Duchon (2000) created the ‘Finding Meaning and Purpose at Work survey’

which measures all three dimensions of spirituality at work (individual, work-unit and

organisation-wide spirituality) quantitatively. Later, Milliman et al. (2003) adopted

Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) three component model of spirituality at work because

previous authors saw these components as important (e.g., Hawley 1993; Milliman et al.

1999; Mitroff & Denton 1999b). Subsequently, Milliman et al. (2003) altered Ashmos

and Duchon’s (2000) measure by removing the transcendent aspect of spirituality at

work (divineness and inner life) from their version, because it was proposed that this

would have greater impact on personal life rather than work life. Milliman et al. (2003)

conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on their revised scale which revealed

satisfactory reliability and validity. Further problems defining spirituality related to the

concept of religion, will be discussed in the following section.

10

1.1.2 Differentiation of Spirituality from Religion

There was a divide in perspectives about whether spirituality was the same concept as

religion. Some authors argued that the two were related (see Fabricatore et al. 2000;

Paloutzian & Ellison 1982; Seidlitz et al. 2002) and others claimed spirituality and

religion were ultimately not the same (see Cunha et al. 2006; Dent, Higgins & Wharff

2005; Duchon & Plowman 2005; Duffy 2006; Marques 2005; Marques et al. 2005;

McCormick 1994).

It was often the practice for researchers to use the terms ‘spirituality’ and ‘religion’

interchangeably (see Butts 1999; Fabricatore et al. 2000; Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2004;

Seidlitz et al. 2002). Although popular literature and media link these two terms, there

is an increasing awareness that they are not necessarily interchangeable concepts

(Cascio 1999; Rothman 2009). For example, evidence suggests that individuals can be

spiritual without being religious (see Hatch et al. 1998; Marler & Hadaway 2002;

Peterman, Fitchett, Brady, Hernandez & Cella 2002; Zinnbauer, Pargament, Cole, Rye,

Butfer, Belavich, Hipp, Scott & Kadar 1997).

As opposed to religion, spirituality was considered by Mitroff and Denton (1999a) as

nondenominational and non-prejudiced: it was embodied by all faiths, races, genders,

sexual orientations and abilities or disabilities. Laabs (1995) considered that spirituality

was not about converting people, or making them join a particular belief system; instead

it was about knowing that every person had his or her own divine power, personal truths

and integrity within to make his or her own judgements. Harrington et al. (2002, p.

155) claimed that spirituality at work was not about religious beliefs, but alternatively

about people who perceived themselves as “spirited beings”, whose spirits needed

energising at work.

Conversely, religion was described as a structured doctrine based on a particular faith,

which is formal, organised and highly structured, rigid and uncompromising (Hocking

2006; Mitroff & Denton 1999a). Even though spirituality is based in religious imagery

historically (e.g., personal transformation, rediscovering self and personal journey),

11

many authors postulate that spirituality is ultimately not about religion (Laabs 1995;

Mitroff & Denton 1999a). Specifically, Seaward (2000, p. 244) reiterates that although

spirituality and religion share grounding of the “mystical divine”, spirituality embraces

different people and views, while religion excludes them.

Authors frequently contend that incorporating religion into the workplace is

inappropriate (see Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Cavanagh 1999; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz

2003b; Laabs 1995; Mitroff & Denton 1999b), except where accommodating religious

diversity (see Cash & Gray 2000), and where it does not interfere with normal

organisational function (Laabs 1995). Cavanagh (1999) suggests that utilising religion

in organisations has the potential to segregate and create suspicion between employees

of different faiths. This is attributed to the decline of religious involvement in society

and people generally becoming sceptical of religion (Weston 2002). Cavanagh (1999)

also claims that organisations which incorporate a common religion into organisational

culture exclude employees who follow a minority faith, or are not religious.

McCormick (1994) acknowledges that although distinct from religion, it is difficult to

incorporate spirituality into the workplace without endangering an employee’s

entitlement to religious freedom.

Despite this, spirituality is viewed as being a relevant issue to be incorporated into

organisations (see Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2004; Milliman et al. 2003; Mitroff & Denton

1999b). For example, The Institute for Management Excellence (2008) website states:

We recognize that each person has their own beliefs. We respect each individual's

belief and their right to hold their beliefs sacred and private. Spirituality - as we define

it - has no religious component or preference; it is a way of expressing more humanity.

Gall et al. (2005) assert that theoretical models describing the process behind

spirituality, stress, coping and well-being, frequently focus on Christianity rather than

the broader concept of spirituality. It is important to distinguish between religion and

spirituality, as the outcome and implications of studies investigating the influence of

spirituality and/or religion will vary depending on what definition of spirituality is used

(Elam 2000; Hebert et al. 2006; Sink 1999; Wills 2009). Giacalone and Jurkiewicz

(2003b, p. 6) argue that combining workplace spirituality with religion is “ill-defined”

12

and “un-testable”, and does not, therefore, contribute to the scientific body of

knowledge. In addition to spirituality at work, other organisational variables will be

investigated in this study. The following sections will define these other major concepts

investigated in the present study; firstly job stress and well-being.

1.2 Defining Job Stress and Well-Being

An organisational issue that may be affected by spirituality at work is job stress. Stress

is defined as an event or situation that is perceived as threatening, demanding or

challenging (Hardie, Kashima & Pridmore 2005). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined

stress as a relationship between a person and their environment which is appraised as

taxing and endangers his or her well-being. Generally, theories of stress state that high

stress leads to poor health consequences, especially where an individual lacked the

coping resources or used ineffective strategies to cope with stress (Hardie et al. 2005;

Lazarus & Folkman 1984; Lazarus & Launier 1978). These health consequences could

occur in the psychological or physiological realms (Stanton et al. 2001).

In linking stress to well-being, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) postulated three phases of

cognitive appraisal that occur during stressful situations, which have an impact on well-

being, namely primary appraisal, secondary appraisal and reappraisal. Primary

appraisal referred to the cognitive perceptual process whereby an individual perceives

something as stressful, neutral or positive. Secondary appraisal involves evaluating

what might be done about a stressful situation and the individual deciding whether they

have the coping resources to deal with the stressor. Reappraisal involves an altered

perception about how stressful the situation is based on new information from the

environment. An important aspect of Lazarus and Folkman’s model is that perception

of whether the stressor is negative, positive or neutral, rests largely on the skills, needs

and values of the particular individual. Schuler (1982) argues what is perceived as

stressful to one individual, may not be perceived as stressful to another. The stress

process has two elements: the actual interchange between the person and the

environment; and the person’s responses over time to the stress experienced. Long-term

stressors cause more severe health problems than short-term stressors.

13

Stanton et al. (2001) developed a self-report measure, the Stress in General scale, which

measured job stress based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) definition and model of

stress as applied to a work context. The scale was designed to measure job stress

generally (as distinct from job satisfaction and particular stressors or strains) in a wide

range of workplaces (Stanton et al. 2001). The Stress in General scale comprised two

domains: threat (e.g., irritating, nerve-wracking, uncomfortable, overwhelming) and

pressure (e.g., pressured, hectic, demanding, pushed).

With reference to well-being, Hardie et al. (2005) describe health as a multidimensional

concept which includes social, emotional and physical states of ill-being and well-being.

Stress can manifest in a person either positively or negatively, and is therefore a good

indicator of health (Hardie et al. 2005). Hardie et al.’s (2005) Multidimensional Health

States Scale – Short Form (MHSS-SF) consisted of a measure of well-being (with

emotional, somatic, cognitive, social and sexual sub-factors), and a measure of ill-being

(with physical symptoms, depression and anxiety sub-factors). Both positive and

negative aspects of psychological and physical states of health can be measured

concurrently (Hardie et al. 2005). The following section will define the other major

variables examined in the present study: work-life balance and work-life conflict.

1.3 Work-Life Balance and Work-Life Conflict

Two concepts related to spirituality at work are work-life balance and work-life conflict

(Briggins 1996; Burack 1999; Laabs 1995; Marques 2005). The terms work-life

balance and work-family balance are often used interchangeably in past literature, but

generally are applied to the same concept (e.g., Hill, Hawkins, Ferris & Weitzman 2001;

Quick, Henley & Quick 2004; Reiter 2007). ‘Work-life balance’ is a better label for the

concept as it encompasses work, personal and family responsibilities (Parkes &

Langford 2008; Quick et al. 2004; Sullivan & Mainiero 2008). Also, commonly

interchanged terms are work-life balance and work-life conflict (Clark 2000).

Often work-life balance is defined as the absence of conflict between work and family

and personal roles (Frone 2003; Quick et al. 2004). Limiting work-life research to just

14

one domain is too simplistic (Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Clark 2000; Hanson, Hammer

& Colton 2006). Balance (or facilitation) and conflict are separate constructs coexisting

at the same time, whereby an individual can experience high levels of both concurrently

(Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Edwards & Rothbard 2000; Hanson et al. 2006; Wayne,

Musisca & Fleeson 2004). Measuring work-life conflict as a substitute for work-life

balance, assumes that work and personal life are incompatible (Clark 2000). Clark

(2000) reasoned that work-life balance is not a simplistic construct and should thus be

measured with more than one measure, not just by the absence of conflict.

Work-life balance is the degree to which an individual was able to simultaneously

balance the emotional, behavioural and time demands of both paid work and family and

personal duties (Hill et al. 2001). Alternatively, work-life conflict occurs when

involvement in one domain, for example work or personal life, interferes with

involvement in the other domain (Hanson et al. 2006).

Work-life spillover theory suggests that a person’s attitudes, emotions, skills and

behaviours produced in one domain (either work or personal life) flow into the other

(Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Edwards & Rothbard 2000; Frone 2003; Zedeck 1992).

Positive spillover (or facilitation) is where participation in work, home and personal life

contribute beneficially to each other (Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Hanson et al. 2006).

Alternatively, negative spillover (or conflict) is where participation in work, home and

personal life contribute detrimentally to each other (Balmforth & Gardner 2006).

Therefore spillover could have positive or negative effects, and could occur in both

directions, for example work-to-personal life spillover and personal life-to-work

spillover (Hill et al. 2001). In other words, work could intrude on, or improve personal

life, and personal life can interrupt, or enhance work (Hill et al. 2001).

Hill et al. (2001) developed a simple five-item work-family balance scale which

assessed how well employees felt that they balanced the demands of their work and

family and personal lives. Hill et al. (2001) used a “mesosystem” paradigm

(Bronfenbrenner 1986, p. 723) and spillover theory (Zedeck 1992) to investigate work-

life balance. The mesosystem paradigm described how external environmental systems

could affect the family system. In this paradigm, external systems (such as work) do

15

not operate independently of the internal family system, but interact with it through a

permeable barrier (Bronfenbrenner 1986; Hill et al. 2001). For example, events in the

workplace can influence processes within the family system and vice versa.

In order to measure work-life conflict, O'Neil, Helms and Gable (1986) developed the

Gender-Role Conflict-I Scale (GRCS-1) which was designed to measure personal

gender-role attitudes, behaviours, and conflicts. The six-item work-life conflict

subscale of the GRCS-1 specifically assessed the degree to which individuals felt that

their personal life conflicted with their work lives.

To summarise this chapter, individual spirituality and spirituality at work are distinct

concepts from religion. Likewise, spirituality at work is also a different concept from

individual spirituality, and should be treated as such in research. Therefore in this

study, it is an aim to use a non-religious measure of spirituality at work. Other major

concepts discussed in this introductory chapter were work-life balance and work-life

conflict, job stress, well-being and ill-being. The current study will discuss the

implications that spirituality at work has for these particular HRM issues, and will also

discuss the applicability of a spiritual appraisal theory which links spirituality, stress

and well-being.

The following chapter will describe in more detail the increased trend of spirituality in

business and HRM practices, and how spirituality is evident in existing management

theory. The importance of incorporating spirituality into HRM practices will be then be

outlined. Different measures of spirituality at work will also be examined in order to

reliably measure the concept and test the existing theory linking spirituality, stress and

well-being. A more detailed review of research literature linking spirituality at work

with work-life balance, work-life conflict, job stress, well-being and ill-being will also

be presented, including a contemporary theory linking stress, well-being and

spirituality.

16

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Overview of Literature Review

This literature review chapter will begin by outlining trends involving spirituality in

business and reasons for the increased interest in spirituality at work. Evidence of

spirituality in existing management theory and examples of how management theory

has evolved over time will be discussed. The importance of spirituality at work to

HRM will also be outlined. Different measures and models of spirituality and

spirituality at work will be overviewed and critically examined, followed by a detailed

review of research investigating the relationships of spirituality at work with work-life

balance, work-life conflict, job stress, well-being and ill-being. The literature review

will then summarise research conducted on a variety of occupations and will present an

outline of research conducted specifically on academic teaching staff. The chapter will

also discuss the benefits of spirituality at work for the individual, work-unit, and

organisation. Based on the literature review, this chapter will conclude with a concept

map outlining the variables to be studied in this study and the hypothesised relationships

between these variables.

2.1 The Trend Towards Spiritual Business Practices

Marques et al. (2005) stated that a new spiritual awareness had been stirring in workers’

souls for at least the last decade, driving them toward a more humanistic work

environment, more meaning at work and a connection to something higher than just

functional work. This new spiritual awareness and interest in spirituality at work is

evident in the increasing number of books (see Biberman & Whitty 2007; Giacalone &

Jurkiewicz 2003a), magazines (e.g., Briggins 1996; Shellenberger 2000) and popular

press (see Cornell 2007; Rochfort 2007; Slattery 2007), websites (e.g., Centre for

Spirituality at Work 2008; The Christian Science Publishing Society 2008; The Institute

for Management Excellence 2008; The SLaM Network 2007) and journal articles (see

17

Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Milliman et al. 2003; Mitroff & Denton 1999b) dedicated to

the notion of incorporating spirituality into the workplace.

Duchon and Plowman (2005) observed that in the United States of America in

approximately the last ten years, popular business publications such as The Wall Street

Journal, Business Week and Fortune reported an increased desire among employees for

creating meaning and purpose at work. In Australian popular press there was much

discussion about spirituality at work and ‘Generation Y’ employees. For example,

Patterson (2007) claims that Generation Y are more interested in spirituality, but less

likely to be involved in mainstream religions than are the ‘Baby-Boomer’ generation. It

was even suggested that Generation Y are “the most unchurched generation in history”

(Patterson 2007, p. 87). Generation Y are also argued to be the most educated

generation in history and are more optimistic about life and work than their

predecessors, Generation X (Patterson 2007).

To clarify, Cleveland and Lynem (2005) define ‘Baby-Boomers’ as people born

between 1945 and 1964, Generation X as individuals born between 1965 and 1980, and

Generation Y persons as born between 1980 and 2000. Cleveland and Lynem (2005)

contend that Generation X and Y are more likely to embrace diversity, technology

informality and seek work-life balance, than the ‘Baby-Boomer’ generation.

Furthermore, Beaudoin (1998) reason that there is a spiritual revival occurring in

Generation X, with many individuals in their twenties and thirties seeking spirituality

and meaning in life (not constrained by religion).

A study by Monash University, the Australian Catholic University and the Christian

Research Association found that forty-eight percent of Generation Y participants

believed in a God, twenty percent did not believe in a God and thirty-two percent were

unsure whether a God existed (Patterson 2007). Two thirds of Generation Y

participants who did not believe in a God believed in some kind of higher being or life

force (Patterson 2007). Furthermore, Adonis (2007) claimed that Generation Y

employees preferred working for socially responsible organisations. Adonis (2007) also

maintained that organisations which were environmentally friendly, supported charities

and communities and embraced diversity, would have competitive advantage.

18

As a result of the growing number of Generation Y in the workforce, managers are

increasingly focussing on emotional and spiritual needs of their employees in order to

survive in the quickly changing competitive workforce (Slattery 2007). Slattery (2007,

p.33) asserts that traditionally managers focused on achieving business needs through

the technical and strategic skills of employees rather than the “softer” emotional and

spiritual needs of employees.

Business leaders were also described in Australian newspapers to be increasingly

utilising spiritual business practices. For example, John McFarlane, Chief Executive

Officer of ANZ for ten years, was described by Cornell (2007, p. 30) as the “standout

banker of his generation”, as he was instrumental in the transformation change of ANZ.

McFarlane’s strategies were described as radical, especially his emphasis on personal

growth which resulted in profitable dividends. His personality was described as being

transcendental after, being quoted: “I believe that everything in the universe is

connected… what its called I’m not sure… but I am absolutely sure there is a universal

force that is spiritual” (Cornell 2007, p. 30). Cornell suggested that McFarlane’s

purpose was intensely and primarily spiritual and was the basis of his management

practice and success.

Corporate businesses were also reported to be profiting from encouraging the practice of

spirituality. For example, it was reported by Rochfort (2007) that Rupert Murdoch’s

Fox Entertainment Group acquired the spiritual website Beliefnet.com in December

2007. After being acquired, Beliefnet.com described itself as independent and not

affiliated with any spiritual organisation or movement (Beliefnet Inc. 2007). Beliefnet

Inc.’s (2007) agenda was to help people meet spiritual needs by helping people find and

journey on a spiritual path that produces comfort, clarity, strength, hope and happiness.

Beliefnet Inc.’s (2007) website offers free information for individuals on the topic of

spirituality, but makes a significant proportion of revenue from advertising (Beliefnet

Inc. 2007).

Another online resource, the SLaM network (2007), described itself as being focused on

grounded and realistic ways of improving leadership and management practices of

19

business, society and the environment. The SLaM network (2007) website specialises

in helping organisations foster spirituality into the workplace by offering public

education through consulting, community, corporate-based learning groups,

conferences, research on spirituality, leadership and management, publication of

newsletters and an academically reviewed journal. The SlaM network (2007) stated

that:

We believe that an awareness of the spiritual nature of human beings is essential to

good leadership and management. This consideration of both tangible and intangible

aspects of being is increasingly important as we navigate through the resource

boundaries of our natural world. SLaM is not a religion or a belief system, our network

is open to people from all beliefs and from all spiritual paths.

The Centre for Spirituality at Work website (2008) also provided advice about how

businesses could develop spirituality in the workplace. The Centre for spirituality at

work (2008) seeks to help employees wanting to deepen the spiritual connection

between themselves, their work and their organisational community.

Subsequently, not only have popular press and corporate businesses observed the

potential benefits of spiritual workplaces, but management groups have as well. For

example, the number of conferences run by management groups about spirituality in

business increased from none to approximately twelve per year in the United States of

America, and several throughout the rest of the world in 1998 (Tischler 1999). For

example, in 1999 the International Center for Spirit at Work (2007) held its second

annual conference on spirituality in organisations. More recently, the fourth

International Business and Leadership Symposium (2009) is being held in Europe in

November 2009 on the topic of ethics in business, corporate culture and spirituality. It

is an annual event that brings together leaders from business, politics, academia, society

and faith-based organisations to discuss business practices that are sustainable and

profitable for organisations.

Biberman (2003) reported a wealth of academic conferences held on the topic of

spirituality after 1995 and an abundance of non-academic conferences on the topic after

1999. The topic of spirituality was formally introduced to the Academy of Management

in a symposium in 1997 and a spirituality interest group (named ‘Management,

20

Spirituality and Religion’) was approved by the Academy Board in 1999, which

registered two hundred academy members in 2001 (Biberman 2003).

Australia also seems to be following this trend, however few conferences have focussed

on spirituality in business specifically. For example, in 2007 The Institute for

Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, collaborated with the Ethos

Foundation to run a conference about leadership, spirituality and sustainability for

businesses (The SLaM Network 2007). Additionally, The SlaM Network (2007) is

running its seventh annual spirituality conference in 2010 (Sydney). The conference

will discuss how managers and leaders from commercial corporations, small to medium

enterprises, public sector bodies or not-for-profit organisations, can incorporate

spirituality into the workplace.

More conferences in Australia have focussed on spirituality and health, rather than

business. For example, the eighth International Conference on Children's Spirituality

was held in Ballarat in January 2008 (Multicultural Mental Health Australia 2008). The

conference consisted of experts, scholars and practitioners to explore issues, successful

practices and innovative approaches that promoted spirituality and well-being in

children and adolescents. Also, the third Spirituality and Health Conference:

Integrating Spirituality in the Practice of Health Care was held in Adelaide in 2009 to

discuss the role research has in demonstrating robust links between spirituality and

health (Spirituality and Health 2009).

Researchers reasoned that the sudden influx of ‘spirituality’ at work literature in

conferences, academic and popular media is not a trend, but a movement (Hicks 2003).

According to Ashmos and Duchon (2000, p. 134) this “spirituality movement”, or “new

management paradigm” (Dehler & Welsh 1994, p. 17) is occurring in many

organisations and academic disciplines. Spirituality at work is assumed to be beneficial

to all stakeholders in organisations, therefore managers are increasingly introducing

human resource and organisational development programs to increase spirituality at

work (Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2006). In spite of this, research involving spirituality at

work only recently started to develop from conceptual discussion to the much needed

theory building and empirical testing (Corner 2009; Dehler & Welsh 2003; Duchon &

21

Plowman 2005; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b).

Hicks (2003) contended that no single cause could explain the spirituality movement in

organisations. The movement was attributed to three broad causes: social and business

changes; major global changes in values, and the growing interest in Eastern

philosophies (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b). Firstly, social and business changes

have led to an increased number of disheartened employees searching for greater

meaning and purpose at work (Cash & Gray 2000). The increased frequency of

organisational downsizing, restructuring, re-engineering and layoffs caused decreasing

employee morale and loyalty (Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2006; Singhal 2005), worker

safety, health and well-being (Quinlan 2007). Other examples of business and social

changes are the decline of community groups, aging ‘Baby-Boomers’, increasing

technology making jobs redundant, and pressure of global competition which have all

increased the interest of spirituality at work (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Cash & Gray

2000).

Due to these social and business changes, organisations face greater challenges in

redefining the employment relationship (Singhal 2005). For example, the elimination of

the psychological contract (contract which established commitment of an employee to

an employer outside the written contract, e.g., loyalty), longer working hours and the

growing use of teamwork (Dessler, Griffiths & Lloyd-Walker 2007; Harrington et al.

2002) are further examples of social and business changes leading to an increased need

for spirituality at work. Thus, lack of loyalty and longer working hours increase

employees need for spirituality at work, and increased teamwork can foster the

development of spirituality in the workplace.

Secondly, the increased interest in spirituality has been attributed to businesses

developing a sense of corporate social responsibility, and individuals seeking self-

actualisation (as opposed to financial security) from their work places (Hicks 2003).

This global change in values according to Hicks (2003) was a result of improved living

standards in developed countries. Singhal (2005) argues that employees are looking for

a meaningful work-life based on a more altruistic, expressive set of principles. This

global focus of working to obtain personal growth and improve society (rather than for

22

monetary gain only) can be explained by Maslow’s (1943, 1954, 1968) hierarchy of

needs theory (Tischler 1999). By applying Maslow’s theory to the societal level, rather

than the individual level of human behaviour, employees can use their employment to

work towards obtaining meaning, personal, professional and spiritual growth, or what

Maslow (1943, 1954, 1968) described as self-actualisation (Tischler 1999).

In accordance with Maslow’s (1943, 1954, 1968) hierarchy of needs theory, employees

who could only afford to buy the bare essentials to survive, would work mainly for

monetary rewards, and thus would have little desire for any other intrinsic benefits, HR

development programs or personal growth (Tischler 1999). In contrast, while those

employees who were in a secure financial position and were able to afford luxury items,

would be more concerned with personal growth, self-actualisation, HR development

and intrinsic organisational benefits (Tischler 1999). Evidence shows that spiritual

well-being is positively related to self-actualisation and job satisfaction (Clark et al.

2007). Moreover, studies frequently illustrate that beyond a certain threshold, monetary

rewards stop motivating employees and intrinsic rewards primarily begin to motivate

them (Mitroff & Denton 1999b).

Thirdly, the increased interest in spirituality has also been accredited to the growing

curiosity inside and outside the workplace about Eastern and New Age philosophies,

and also the increasing acceptance of cultural diversity (Cash & Gray 2000; Giacalone

& Jurkiewicz 2003b). Examples of these philosophies are acupuncture, Feng Shui,

Buddhism, Taoism, Tarot, self-healing, self-discovery, integration and harmony,

Jungian and transpersonal psychology, meditation, astrology and earth-based rituals

(Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b; Hicks 2003). For example, new age methods such as

meditation and yoga are popular in organisational teambuilding exercises (Levere

1995). The following section will outline how spirituality is not only making its way

into the workplace, but also into management theory.

23

2.2 Relevance of Spirituality in Management Theory

Ashmos and Duchon (2000) argued that there has been a shift away from classical

organisation and management theory (e.g., Taylor 1985; Weber 1947) in which

managers obtain material ends through controlling their subordinates. The industrial

revolution was inspired by ‘morality and duty’, where scientific management was

grounded in efficiency and bureaucratic management theories emphasised rationality,

administration, profit and legality (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Cunha et al. 2006). In

contrast, contemporary theories (such as human relations) evidenced elements of

spirituality, for example, needing to belong, self-recognition and finding meaning in

work (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Cunha et al. 2006). This is similar to spirituality at

work, as spiritual organisations treat employees as people, not as aspects of production

(Pfeffer 2003). Management perspectives have clearly evolved over a period of time

toward incorporating spirituality into the workplace at the individual, work-unit and

organisation-wide levels. This section will summarise major changes and contributions

evident in management theory that have paved the way for spirituality at work.

A major contributor to the HR movement at the individual level was Henry Maslow.

Maslow’s (1943, 1954, 1968) hierarchy of needs, in particular self-actualisation, was

also likened to spirituality at work (Neck & Milliman 1994; Pfeffer 2003; Sass 2000).

Maslow reasoned that people try to reach their full potential as a person (commonly

referred to as striving for self-actualisation) (Neck & Milliman 1994). The need for

self-actualisation was preceded by four other types of needs, which together formed a

needs hierarchy. The needs formed a hierarchy starting from the lowest most basic

needs to the highest needs. These were physiological, safety, belongingness, love,

esteem needs, and finally the need for self-actualisation, which motivate people to reach

their ultimate potential above and beyond lower-order needs. Higher-order needs can

not be met until lower-order needs are satisfied.

Characteristics of a self-actualised person include a superior perception of reality,

increased acceptance of self, others and of nature, increased spontaneity, simple and

natural behaviour, as opposed to artificial or strained (Maslow 1954, 1968). Self-

24

actualised people are claimed to be centred on problems outside of themselves,

appreciate privacy, are autonomous of their environment and culture and have a

continuing ability to appreciate life. They also experience frequent peak experiences

(mystical sensations filled with profound joy, wonder and awe), identify and sympathise

deeply with others, have deeper interpersonal relations and a democratic or non-

judgemental attitude (Maslow 1954). They develop clear opinions of what is right and

wrong, are philosophical and have a kind sense of humour. Maslow argues that those

self-actualised people tended to be creative and detach themselves from specific cultural

norms.

Cunha et al. (2006) suggest that an employee’s spiritual needs, such as sense of purpose

and belonging and self-actualisation, should be addressed by organisations in order to

achieve business and employee goals and competitive advantage. The human relations

perspective contends that employees seek to achieve their full potential as people, (or

self-actualisation) through work, for example, choosing work that has some social

meaning or value (Pfeffer 2003).

After Maslow, Herzberg (1966) developed the two-factor theory, which also evidenced

spirituality. In Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory, motivators such as achievement,

recognition, the work itself, responsibility and advancement were viewed as

contributors to employee satisfaction. Job enrichment was then used to create

meaningful work for employees, motivate and satisfy them (and ultimately increase

organisational productivity) by nurturing an employee’s professional growth. Later,

Hackman and Oldham (1975) developed the job characteristics model as a method for

enriching jobs. Hackman and Oldham viewed meaningful work as one of the key

features of a productive work environment. Part of the job characteristics model,

‘experienced meaningfulness’ involved employee perception that their work was

worthwhile (Duchon & Plowman 2005). Though, it should be pointed out that the

meaningful work aspect of spirituality at work goes beyond the type of meaning and

purpose described by human relations and job design (Duchon & Plowman 2005).

Another view incorporating the individual aspect of spirituality is Neck and Milliman’s

(1994) concept of ‘thought self-leadership’, which is similar to spiritual appraisal, and

25

self-actualisation (Maslow 1943; Sass 2000). Thought self-leadership involves

consciously changing self-talk, mental imagery, beliefs and assumptions to create more

constructive thought patterns, therefore enabling employees to achieve spirituality at

work (Neck & Milliman 1994). Neck and Milliman (1994) maintained that spirituality

could be learned or improved through thought self-leadership, and ultimately this would

lead to improved employee and organisational performance.

More contemporary perspectives paved the way for spiritual work practices by

introducing the work-unit or team aspect of spirituality. These perspectives do this by

focussing on creating collectively responsible and co-operative cultures to create quality

products, holistic concern, having meaningful and shared values and co-operation, as

well as a vibrant mission to inspire employees (Cunha et al. 2006). For example,

collective reward structures are claimed to decrease competition between individual

employees which, therefore, helps to increase knowledge sharing and helping others, as

well as developing a sense of community (Pfeffer 2003). The self-managed team is

another management concept which helps to build employee spirituality at work by

providing group-based autonomous decision making and empowerment (Sexton 1994).

Self-managed teams do this by fostering a sense of community and connection to

others, creating joint values, positive self-images and feelings of self-worth (Pfeffer

2003).

More recent management perspectives have taken a holistic view of incorporating

spirituality into organisations, by introducing the organisation-wide aspect of

spirituality. For example, organisational transformation is a radical change that requires

a revision of the organisation’s belief system, values and purpose (Dehler & Welsh

1994). Spirituality is evident through organisational transformation concepts such as

shared vision, inspiring leadership, intrinsic motivation and group belongingness

(Dehler & Welsh 1994; Dehler & Welsh 2003; Neal, Bergman-Lichtenstein & Banner

1999). Dehler and Welsh (1994) contended that implementing organisational

transformation successfully requires attending to the emotional (or spiritual) side of the

business, by aligning employee and organisational purpose, practice and value.

Similarly, transformational (inspirational or charismatic) leadership is another

26

frequently mentioned perspective linked to spirituality at work (see Dehler & Welsh

1994; Dent et al. 2005; Duchon & Plowman 2005; Hartsfield 2003; Krishnan 2008;

Neck & Milliman 1994). Transformational leadership contrasts with the more

traditional and rational transactional leadership approach, which is characterised as

leadership with no enduring purpose after the exchange between employee and

employer (leader) is complete (Dehler & Welsh 1994; DuBrin, Dalglish & Miller 2006).

Dehler and Welsh (1994) claim that shared vision, emotional arousal and employee

inspiration are achieved through transformational leadership.

Research has shown that transformational leadership is related to increased spirituality

and organisational identification (see Hartsfield 2003; Krishnan 2008).

Transformational leadership emphasises the emotional arousal of employees through

inspiration rather than just through intellectual stimulation (Dehler & Welsh 1994;

Tourish & Pinnington 2002). Employees are said to be inspired to attain meaning and

purpose in work rather than be motivated by rewards and security (Dehler & Welsh

1994). Transformational leadership also involves appealing to employees’ higher sense

of purpose and aligning the leader’s vision with employee values (DuBrin et al. 2006).

Despite the fact that recent management perspectives are clearly evolving closer

towards incorporating spirituality into work practices, evidence suggests that employees

are still feeling as though their organisations treat them as dispensable objects in the

process of making profits (Cash & Gray 2000). Researchers often noted the lack of

theoretical understanding and development of how spirituality should be applied to

work (Butts 1999; Cunha et al. 2006; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b).

To remedy this, a few theories have emerged which incorporate spirituality into

leadership and management specifically. For example, Fry (2003) suggests a causal

theory of spiritual leadership which was developed within an intrinsic motivation

model. The theory of spiritual leadership incorporates vision, hope or faith, and

altruistic love, theories of workplace spirituality, and spiritual survival. The purpose of

spiritual leadership is to create vision and value congruence across the organisation,

work-unit, and individual levels, which ultimately, will lead to high levels of

organisational commitment and productivity. Furthermore, Steingard’s (2005) theory of

27

spiritually-informed management integrates traditional and spiritual approaches to

leadership and management. The model has three dimensions: awareness

(unconsciousness and consciousness); change (translation and transformation); and

manifestation (temporal and perennial).

Evidence has suggested that organisations are more profitable, popular and sustainable

when they create a culture and strategy which emphasises fair treatment of employees,

social and environmental responsibility and understanding that employee needs are to a

large extent, intrinsically motivated (Bartol, Tein, Matthews & Sharma 2008; Tischler

1999). Similarly, Konz and Ryan (1999) contended that in contemporary times,

employees are more motivated to integrate their work, personal and spiritual lives, in

order to work co-operatively in a community and be joined in vision and purpose

beyond making profits. Ashmos and Duchon (2000) agree, claiming that the search for

meaning at work and corporate spirituality are likely to characterise organisations and

theoretical perspectives of the future. The benefits of incorporating spirituality into the

workplace will be discussed in the following section.

2.3 Importance of Spirituality for HR Managers

Previous research discusses at length beneficial outcomes of incorporating spirituality

into the workplace. As the trend towards more humanistic HRM practices increases, so

does the importance of incorporating spirituality into the workplace (Marques 2005). It

is claimed that in order to develop complete and profound engagement with employees

(who are the most important organisational resource), managers need to incorporate

spirituality into work life (see Mitroff & Denton 1999a; Stone 2008). Stone (2008)

maintained that successful organisations of the future will provide meaning and purpose

to their employees and encourage individuals in self-development. This section will

outline the importance of spirituality to HRM and its implications for business.

According to the three level model of spirituality at work proposed by Ashmos and

Duchon (2000), spirituality is expressed by individual, group and organisational goals,

aspirations, values and relationships. Weston (2002) argues that all organisations

28

consist of some degree of spirituality. Similarly, Ashmos and Duchon (2000) claim that

spirituality is more visible in some workplaces than others. Regardless of how

observable spirituality is currently in organisations, it is predicted by Harrington et al.

(2002) that incorporating spirituality into HRM practices in the future will become an

important part of every type of organisation, large and small. Kinjerski and Skrypnek

(2006) claim that this is because spirituality at work is perceived as beneficial to

employees and clients. Employers are currently encouraged by academics and

organisational consultants to implement spirituality into organisational practices

(Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2006). Increasingly, spirituality at work is being recommended

for everyday organisations, as employees commonly experience estrangement from

work and from colleagues, and lack meaning in their jobs (Cavanagh & Bandsuch

2002).

Incorporating employees’ spiritual needs into the workplace and HRM practices is

viewed by Mitroff and Denton (1999a) as being the most important challenge for

management in the next millennium. For example, Human Resource (HR) managers

will face increasing equal employment opportunity (EEO) challenges in accommodating

spirituality into the workplace (Cash & Gray 2000). Empirical evidence also

demonstrates that spiritual organisations are perceived as more profitable than non-

spiritual organisations (Mitroff & Denton 1999b). Furthermore, Mitroff and Denton

(1999b) asserted that in the future, only organisations which encourage the integration

of employee spirituality into the workplace will be able to produce world-class products

and services. Research indicates that spiritual-based organisational cultures are the

most productive and profitable, therefore organisations are likely to invest time and

energy in developing such cultures (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b).

Inayatullah (2006) reasoned that incorporating spirituality into the workplace and into

scientific inquiry (without degrading spirituality) does not represent a step backward

into medieval times, but a step forward. Organisations often incorporate good business

ethics and social responsibility into HRM systems and decision making in order to

increase success of their triple bottom line (Stone 2008; Weston 2002). For example,

companies such as Telstra, Westpac and ANZ in Australia have triple bottom lines:

community, environment and profit or performance (ANZ Inc. 2008; Telstra

29

Corporation Ltd. 2008; Westpac Banking Corporation 2009). Furthermore, Inayatullah

(2006) adds that in the future, successful organisations will shift towards having a

quadruple bottom line, which will include spirituality.

Contemporary approaches to HRM contend that (as well as dealing with organisational

policies, procedures and strategic management) competitive advantage in business is

gained by developing employee knowledge, commitment, job satisfaction, coping with

change and motivation (Stone 2008). These outcomes are typically promoted as being

beneficial factors for organisations in common management literature (Bartol et al.

2008; Stone 2008). Harrington et al. (2002) argue that organisations can gain these

benefits by incorporating spirituality into the workplace.

This view was supported by Neck and Milliman (1994) who believe that spirituality at

work could enhance employee and organisational performance. This improvement

occurs through increasing employee intuition, innovation and joint organisational

vision, personal growth, energy, teamwork and employee commitment (Neck &

Milliman 1994). Also, Cavanagh and Bandsuch (2002) suggest that incorporating

spirituality into HRM policies and programs could help employees develop good ethics,

motivation, creativity, job satisfaction and co-operation. Furthermore, it has been

argued that incorporating spirituality into the workplace helps to sustain organisational

goals and energises employees towards greater productivity (Harrington et al. 2002;

Pandey, Gupta & Arora 2008).

Pandey et al. (2008) assert that incorporating spirituality into the workplace can

promote customer perception of employee service positively. Spirituality at work also

contributes to improved trust levels amongst employees, deeper satisfaction and wiser

decision-making in organisations, as well as enhanced belongingness, decreased

employee alienation, clearer communication, decreased turnover and improved

organisational commitment (Singhal 2005).

Research by Laabs (1995) supported the view that fostering spirituality in the workplace

could help promote the use of creativity, intuition and employees’ ownership of the

organisation. In addition, empirical evidence exists to support the idea that spirituality

30

at work had beneficial influences on employee organisational commitment, intention to

quit, job involvement and organisation-based self-esteem (Milliman et al. 2003).

Despite the evident advantages of incorporating spirituality in the workplace, there

remains confusion about how to implement it in HRM procedures (Laabs 1995). To

remedy this, Marques (2005) suggested incorporating spiritual practices and values into

job recruitment and selection, job enrichment, motivating beyond pay, equity,

individualisations, rewards and accommodating special needs, training and development

programs. It was also recommended by Giacalone and Jurkiewicz (2003b) that HR

managers should respect legal issues (such as abuse or harassment) surrounding the

incorporation of spirituality into the workplace. For example, harassment refers to

prejudice on the basis of an employee’s religious or spiritual belief system (Giacalone &

Jurkiewicz 2003b; Hitchens 2000).

Ackers and Preston (1997) criticised spiritual HR programs for often being involuntary

and short-term fixes for organisational problems. For example, as HRM programs

largely rely on involuntary and temporary conformity of employees, the researchers

cautioned that the values of an organisation could be forced on employees because they

feared demotion or dismissal if they did not comply with the organisation. Consensus

with this view was evidenced, referring to some management spirituality programs as

‘fads’ that were implemented purely to improve organisation profits (Dehler & Welsh

2003; Marques 2005). In addition, Cavanagh and Bandsuch (2002) cautioned that

spirituality could be misused by management consultants who sell the implementation

of new HR programs purely to make money, not because they are effective. Selling

short-term HR programs (such as spirituality) leads to consultants collecting payment

and the organisation abandoning the program when short-term results are not produced

(Cavanagh & Bandsuch 2002).

Moreover, Milliman et al. (2003) cautioned against misusing spirituality in the

workplace in order to solely enhance employee productivity. Milliman et al. (2003)

maintain that spirituality should be practised authentically in the workplace in order to

have a positive impact on employees and have long-term organisational benefits.

Organisations that want to be truly spiritual, should not do so only to increase the

31

organisation’s bottom line, but because the organisation wants to be authentic to itself

and to its employees (Dehler & Welsh 2003; Mitroff & Denton 1999a). To avoid the

misuse of spirituality in the workplace, development of theories about spirituality at

work is required. In order to do this, spirituality at work needs to be researched further.

The difficulties in measuring spirituality at work will be discussed in the following

section.

2.4 Measuring Spirituality

Due to the increased interest in researching spirituality at work, new measures have

been developed. As there is no widely accepted definition or theoretical model of

spirituality at work in academic research, measuring the concept of spirituality at work

is problematic (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b; MacDonald & Friedman 2002).

Ultimately, this may have largely contributed to the devaluation of existing spirituality

at work research and the lack of understanding of how spirituality should be applied to

work (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b). More recent studies noted the gaps in

spirituality research, such as lack of empirical research, little replication of studies and

few validated measures (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b; MacDonald & Friedman 2002;

Milliman et al. 2003).

Specifically, Gall et al. (2005) commented that the sparse empirical work which does

exist concentrates on describing what spirituality is rather than identifying models

explaining the process behind spirituality’s influence on other variables, such as stress

and well-being. Some authors tried to close these gaps by developing measures and

validating instruments that measure spirituality quantitatively, empirically and critically

(see Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Milliman et al. 2003). Compared to measures of

individual spirituality (e.g., Hatch et al. 1998) and religious-related spirituality (e.g.,

Fabricatore et al. 2000; Kass et al. 1991; Paloutzian & Ellison 1982; Seidlitz et al.

2002), few measures of spirituality at work have been developed (e.g., Ashmos &

Duchon 2000; Mitroff & Denton 1999b).

Due to the subjective nature of spirituality, authors have questioned whether spirituality

32

at work can be defined or critically and empirically studied (e.g., Inayatullah 2006;

Laabs 1995; Mitroff & Denton 1999a; Sink 1999). MacDonald and Friedman (2002)

acknowledged this limitation but argued that quantitative methods and psychometric

testing provide important information about spirituality and that qualitative methods

have their own shortcomings. Organisations frequently focus on material outcomes of

spirituality, such as profit or the economic bottom line, rather than ‘soft’ outcomes, such

as well-being, stress and satisfaction (Inayatullah 2006; Laabs 1995). To overcome this

issue of ‘measuring the immeasurable’, Inayatullah (2006) suggests taking the layered

approach, which involves measuring the outer layers (community and ethical

dimensions). Inayatullah argues that this will ultimately give clues as to the deeper

layers (mythical and soul level) of spirituality which are difficult to measure directly.

Based on measuring these outer layers, there are many different theoretical models and

measures of spirituality and spirituality at work. For example, Piedmont (1999) based

the Spiritual Transcendence Scale on Costa and McCrae’s (1992) five factor model of

personality. In an evaluation of individual spirituality (not work-specific) instruments,

MacDonald and Friedman (2002) concluded that many of the scales include subscales

(made up of more than one component) and many used religious-based spirituality

items, or used the term spirituality interchangeably with religion. Herbert et al. (2006)

and Pandey et al. (2008) contended that spirituality was a multidimensional construct

that should be measured accordingly (with more than a few items and components).

Religious-based measures of spirituality often define spirituality in terms of religious

beliefs and view the two concepts as one and the same. For example, some of these

religious measures contain questions relating to a specific belief system (see Allport &

Ross 1967's Religious Orientation scale) and others are non-specific to a particular faith

(see Kass et al. 1991's Index of Core Spiritual Experiences). These non-specific or

global measures could be misunderstood (Hebert et al. 2006). For example, the term

‘God’ might not be relevant to all religions or those who were agnostic or atheist. The

Index of Core Spiritual Experiences (Kass et al. 1991, p. 210) is a seven-item scale

asking participants to use their own definition of the terms “God” or “higher power”

when answering questions regarding the occurrence of spiritual experiences. These

include experiences assuring a person of the existence of God and experiences that

33

induce feelings of closeness with God.

Other measures have both spirituality and religious-based components (see Fabricatore

et al. 2000 Spiritual Involvement Scale; Paloutzian & Ellison 1982 Spiritual Well-being

scale; Seidlitz et al. 2002 Spiritual Transcendence Index). The most frequently used

instrument in spirituality literature was the Spiritual Well-being Scale (Ellison 1983;

Paloutzian & Ellison 1982). It is a 20-item scale intended to measure the spiritual

quality of life based on two separate but related components: existential well-being

(reflecting a person’s sense of purpose and satisfaction in life, independent of religion)

and religious well-being (persons well-being in relation to God).

The Spiritual Involvement Scale (Fabricatore et al. 2000) consists of two subscales:

spiritual life integration and social justice commitment. Spiritual life integration items

refer to direct relationships with God and personal faith, while the social justice

commitment items are characterised by more active, altruistic-orientated statements

(Powers et al. 2007, p. 238). The scale was designed to measure individual spirituality

in people’s lives.

A subsequent religion and spirituality combination, the Spiritual Transcendence Index

(Seidlitz et al. 2002) was developed to measure personal experiences of divineness

which affected self-perceptions, feelings, goals, and ability to move beyond difficulties.

The scale was constructed also to accommodate different views of spirituality and faith

while still emphasizing their central similarities. The first subscale referred specifically

to the term ‘God’, and the second subscale referred to the term ‘spirituality’.

These instruments do not totally differentiate spirituality at work from religion (specific

or non-specific to a particular faith system). In an attempt to completely discriminate

individual spirituality from religion, the Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale (Hatch

et al. 1998) was designed. The scale was intended to assess spiritual involvement and

activity, not just beliefs. The instrument divides spirituality into four components

(internal/ritual, external/ritual, existential/meditative, and humility/personal application)

and its items do not refer to the terms ‘religion’ or ‘God’ specifically, but ‘ritual’

aspects may be likened to religion. Even though the Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs

34

scale tried to distinguish religion from spirituality, it still did not specifically measure

spirituality in a workplace context. In comparison to individual spirituality and

religious-based spirituality, the number of available instruments designed specifically to

measure spirituality in a work context, were few.

Mitroff and Denton (1999b) aimed to investigate spirituality in the workplace

empirically with ‘The Questionnaire of Meaning and Purpose in the Workplace’, which

involved both quantitative and qualitative components. The questionnaire contained

items concerning meaning and purpose in the workplace and employee perceptions of

their organisation. The questionnaire also aimed to investigate employee perceptions

about spirituality and religion, perceptions about self expression in the workplace, the

role spirituality and personal values play in the work place and what processes

employees recommend to initiate discussions about spirituality in the workplace.

Although enlightening on the topic of spirituality in a workplace context, Mitroff and

Denton did not define any subscales or provide any reliability or validity values for the

questionnaire.

Where Mitroff and Denton (1999b) studied both spirituality and religion by using

quantitative and qualitative methods, Ashmos and Duchon (2000) researched

spirituality at work empirically, but focussed specifically on spirituality at work (not

religion) using a quantitative approach. Ashmos and Duchon developed the ‘Finding

Meaning and Purpose at Work Survey’, which measured spirituality at work dimensions

(conditions for community, meaning at work and inner life) on the individual, work unit

and organisational levels. Their measure had the advantage over other previous

measures in that it was multi-dimensional and assessed the degree to which employees

experienced particular aspects of spirituality at work. The authors also conducted

reliability analyses for their scale.

The measure produced good internal consistency, but factor analyses revealed some

problems with validity. Factor analyses demonstrated that questionnaire items

addressing the individual (conditions for community, meaning at work and inner life)

produced the most valid factor structure, whereas some of the items addressing the work

unit and several of the items addressing the organisation, loaded on more than one

35

factor (Ashmos & Duchon 2000). Specifically, an exploratory factor analysis was

conducted, extracting seven different factors on the individual level of spirituality at

work: conditions for community, meaning at work, inner life, blocks to spirituality,

personal responsibility, positive connections with other individuals and contemplation

(Ashmos & Duchon 2000). The work unit level yielded two factors: ‘work unit

community’ and ‘positive work unit values’, while the organisational level yielded two

factors: ‘organisational values’ and ‘individual and the organisation’ (Ashmos &

Duchon 2000). As Ashmos and Duchon (2000) expected three factors, they concluded

that the preliminary research provided empirical evidence for their spirituality at work

model, but more research was required to improve validity of the scale.

Ashmos and Duchon (2000) were cited repeatedly in spirituality and spirituality at work

literature (see Dent et al. 2005; Harrington et al. 2002; Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2006;

Milliman et al. 2003) and their spirituality at work measure was used frequently (see

Duchon & Plowman 2005; Harrington et al. 2002; Milliman et al. 2003). Milliman et

al. (2003) further improved Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) measure by renaming the

factors, using only some of the original items and including some of their own items.

Milliman et al. (2003) measured only three dimensions of spirituality at work:

meaningful work, sense of community and alignment with organisational values. They

utilised Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) meaningful work and alignment with

organisational values items, but wanted to assess the sense of community experienced

by workers, rather than the facilitating conditions or outcomes of community. The

results of Milliman et al.’s (2003) study provided empirical support for Ashmos and

Duchon’s (2000) spirituality at work survey, but yielded better validity with their

version. This measure had advantages over other scales discussed previously because it

focused on non-religious spirituality in a work context specifically, was multi-

dimensional and demonstrated reliability and validity. Previous spirituality at work

studies utilising these various measures will be outlined in the following section.

36

2.5 Spirituality at Work Studies

Spirituality at work, individual spirituality and spiritual intelligence are concepts often

used interchangeably, but are very different (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Emmons 2000a;

Fabricatore et al. 2000; Tischler 1999). Academic papers repeatedly discussed what

spirituality encompassed, for example, whether or not it was an intelligence or whether

it was the same concept as religion (see Emmons 2000a, 2000b; Engebretson 2003;

Gardner 2000). A large number of these papers began exploring the growing area of

spirituality at work. Studies habitually discussed and defined the concept of spirituality

at work (with little agreement on a single definition) or described organisations’ or

individual’s experiences of spirituality at work (see Duchon & Plowman 2005;

Freshman 1999; Harrington et al. 2002; Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2004; Konz & Francis

1999; Marques 2006), but few investigated spirituality at work’s effect on individual

work attitudes and behaviours or employee wellness (Milliman et al. 2003; Sass 2000).

In addition, research identifying organisational characteristics that directly fostered an

individual’s experience of spirituality at work was lacking (Kinjerski & Skrypnek

2006). The following subsections will briefly outline qualitative spirituality at work

studies, followed by a more detailed view of quantitative studies, and lastly research

that has been conducted specifically in Australia.

2.5.1 Qualitative Spirituality at Work Studies

In terms of empirical qualitative studies investigating spirituality at work, most involved

discussion of what spirituality encompassed. For example, research based journal

articles commonly explored, discussed and developed definitions of spirituality at work

(see Aupers & Houtman 2006; Boyle & Healy 2003; Burack 1999; Butts 1999; Cunha

et al. 2006; Freshman 1999; Howard 2002; Kinjerski & Skrypnek 2004; Tischler 1999)

and explored its differences or similarities with religion in an organisational context

(see Ackers & Preston 1997; Cash & Gray 2000; Cavanagh 1999; Cavanagh &

Bandsuch 2002; Duffy 2006; McCormick 1994). Some studies focused on spirituality

at work and its link with leadership (see Dehler & Welsh 1994; Dent et al. 2005;

Duchon & Plowman 2005; Neck & Milliman 1994). Other studies tried to identify

37

organisational factors that fostered spirituality at work (e.g., Kinjerski & Skrypnek

2006) and perceptions of spirituality in the workplace (e.g., Marques 2006). Some

studies proposed or discussed models of spirituality at work (see Ashmos & Duchon

2000; Cunha et al. 2006; Duffy 2006; Milliman et al. 1999; Mitroff & Denton 1999b)

and discussed applications of spirituality to human resource programs in businesses

(e.g., Marques 2005).

Some case studies existed which examined the properties of spiritual workplaces. For

example, Burack (1999) described Hewlett-Packard (H-P) and the H-P way as being

grounded in spirituality. Some of the elements of the H-P way involved fostering

“nourishment of the individual’s spirit”, balanced and flexible work-life policies, trust

and mutual respect between colleagues, and between colleagues and managers, avoiding

command and control organisation management style (Burack 1999, p. 287). Tom's of

Maine is another example of a workplace utilising spiritual practices which Burack

(1999) discussed. Tom's of Maine was described as a family business creating,

manufacturing, marketing and distributing unique range of personal care household

products. The Tom's of Maine business uses a Buddhist framework in which a unique

type of balance was fostered (Burack 1999). Tom's of Maine fostered the combination

of reflection and action, being strong, integrity, honesty and commitment to society and

commitment to the products it sells, whilst still maintaining a profit (Burack 1999).

In addition to providing a case study on organisational spirituality, Milliman et al.

(1999) proposed a model of how spiritual values could be integrated into organisations.

Milliman et al. then assessed how this model predicted organisational behaviour in the

company Southwest Airlines, who also utilised spiritual practices. The model argued

that organisational spiritual values (such as trust and empowerment) could be

incorporated into both business and employee plans and goals, as well as HRM practice

to reinforce plans or values. This in turn was argued to lead to organizational

performance and employee attitudes and employee spirituality outcomes.

Milliman et al. firstly established that organisational spiritual values, which utilised both

the intellectual and emotional aspects of employees, were more positively related to

employee work and spiritual attitudes and organisational performance, than

38

organisational values, which only used the cognitive aspects of employees. Secondly,

Milliman et al. reported that organisations, which highly empowered their employees,

experienced stronger positive relationships between the organisation’s spiritual values,

employee work, employee spiritual attitudes, and organisational performance. Thirdly,

the researchers reported that organisations, which strongly aligned HRM practices with

the organisation’s core values, experienced stronger positive relationships of the

organisation’s spiritual values, employee work and spiritual attitudes, and organisational

performance.

The growing body of literature on spirituality at work provided a number of insights,

but were criticised for lacking rigorous analysis or critical thinking (Gibbons 2000).

Yet, there were some studies which empirically researched spirituality at work. For

example, the relationship of spirituality at work with work unit performance (e.g.,

Duchon & Plowman 2005), spirituality at work and employee attitudes (e.g., Milliman

et al. 2003), organisational factors that contributed to spirituality at work (e.g., Kinjerski

& Skrypnek 2006) have been studied empirically. In addition, spirituality at work

model-creation and validation (e.g., Ashmos & Duchon 2000) have also been

investigated with empirical methods. Due to their relevance to the current study,

examples of quantitative spirituality at work studies will now be outlined in more detail.

2.5.2 Quantitative Spirituality at Work Studies

A study by Mitroff and Denton (1999b) on spirituality in the workplace reported on

qualitative and quantitative interviews with senior executives from companies known

for their positive explicit stance on spirituality in the workplace, as well as traditional

(non-spiritual) organisational executives. The researchers argued that few organisations

acknowledge the concepts of spirituality and the soul, which is at odds with what

employees are increasingly seeking. The researchers inquired as to what the top three

elements were that gave participants the most meaning and purpose in their jobs, about

the basic values that guided participants in making important decisions and how often

participants were forced to compromise those values in making important decisions at

work.

39

Mitroff and Denton (1999b) found that participants differentiated between religion and

spirituality, defining spirituality as feeling connected to one’s complete self, others and

the whole universe. Those organisations that were perceived by participants as ‘more

spiritual’, were seen as more profitable and as places where employees could bring their

complete selves to work. These organisations were also perceived as able to gain more

work from its employees. Factors that gave participants the most meaning in their work

were the ability to realise their full potential as a person and being associated with a

good or ethical organisation. On the contrary, Mitroff and Denton ascertained that in

‘less spiritual’ organisations, employees experienced difficulties in expressing their

complete selves at work. Participants in the study indicated that they were more able to

demonstrate their intelligence than their emotions at work, which contrasted strongly

with what they indicated gave them the most meaning in their jobs. Most participants

wanted to be able to express and develop their whole-self and spirituality at work but

were afraid to for fear of offending their peers. Mitroff and Denton were concerned by

these findings because they argued that the workplace was one of the most important

settings in which people could realise their full potential.

Later, Milliman et al. (2003) explored the relationship between workplace spirituality

and employee work attitudes (organisation commitment, intention to quit, intrinsic work

satisfaction, job involvement and organisational based self-esteem) in a sample of part-

time evening Master of Business Administration students attending a business school.

The researchers aimed to address this by testing formal hypotheses with exploratory

methods, examining construct validity on survey based methods created by Ashmos and

Duchon (2000). Milliman et al. found that high levels of spirituality at work

(meaningful work, sense of community and alignment with organisational values)

predicted significantly greater organisational commitment of the employees. Lower

levels of intention to quit were significantly predicted by two aspects of spirituality at

work (sense of community and alignment of values). Greater intrinsic work

satisfaction, job involvement and organisation based self-esteem were significantly

predicted by sense of community and meaningful work. Milliman and colleagues

concluded that although alignment with organisational values did not predict all of the

job attitude variables over and above the meaningful work and sense of community

40

variables, it was still an important dimension of workplace spirituality (it did correlate

significantly with all five of the work attitude variables). Areas the researchers

identified for further research were confirmatory factor analysis of spirituality measures

in different work samples, as well as the negative impact of spirituality in the

workplace.

Subsequently, Duchon and Plowman (2005) investigated spirituality at work in six

hospital work units. Duchon and Plowman used the three individual and two work-unit

level measures for spirituality at work created by Ashmos and Duchon (2000). Duchon

and Plowman’s (2005) study intended to investigate the relationship between work unit

spirituality and work performance in order to make inferences about the role of

leadership in spirituality at work. Among work units within the same hospital system,

work unit spirituality was greater in some units than in others. Leaders in units with

higher levels of organisational performance had higher spirituality scores than units

with lower levels of organisational performance. The authors concluded that work unit

spirituality was associated with the leader’s ability to foster workers’ inner life, sense of

meaningful work, and community. They suggested an association between the spiritual

energy of leaders and the spiritual culture of the work unit. Duchon and Plowman

(2005) proposed that work units were spiritual because leaders encouraged a sense of

community and fostered the development of meaningful work.

An investigative study into organisational factors that contributed to the experience of

spirit at work for a group of individuals high in self-reported spirit at work, was

conducted by Kinjerski and Skrypnek (2006). Full-time employed participants from a

variety of occupations were interviewed (dentist, educator, hair stylist, landscape

designer, medical doctor, organisational consultant, parking attendant, physiotherapist,

police constable, professor, real estate agent, receptionist and secretary). Results

showed that organisational conditions that fostered spirit at work were inspiring

leadership and mentorship; strong organisational foundation; organisational integrity;

positive workplace culture and space; sense of community among members;

opportunities for personal fulfilment, continuous learning and development; and

appreciation and regard for employees and their contribution. The studies discussed in

this section were conducted in countries outside of Australia. The following section

41

will outline spirituality at work studies conducted in Australia.

2.5.3 Australian Spirituality at Work Studies

Most spirituality at work studies were conducted in the United States of America and

the United Kingdom; few were conducted in Australia. For example, Harris (2001)

analysed 100 stories containing references to the terms ‘spiritual’, ‘spirituality’ or

‘spiritualism’ in conjunction with ‘work’ from the Australian national daily newspaper

The Australian (published in 1999). Questions asked were: was spirituality seen as a

relationship? What was the source of the spirituality? Was spirituality linked to

behaviour? To what purpose was spirituality put? What techniques for the

development of spirituality were mentioned? Was ‘spirit’ seen as distinct from mind

and body? The most frequent purposes identified for spirituality were firstly to define

an individual, race or nation, and secondly to sustain action (Harris 2001). Christianity,

nature, land or the world, Buddhism, astrology, psychics, mysticism, new age and

crystals were the most often reported sources of spirituality, followed by celebrities,

gurus, music, beauty, indigenous or folk lore, youth, and drugs respectively (Harris

2001).

Techniques used to develop spirituality were meditation, retreat or silence, discipline or

yoga, music, art, sense of community, crystals, psychics, incense, worship, drugs or

action were commonly mentioned. There was little evidence that spirituality was seen

as a relationship with a higher power, but more evidence that spirituality was linked

with behaviour. Spirituality was seen most often as distinct from mind, body and spirit

(Harris 2001).

Another Australian study on spirituality in the workplace by Becker (2002), studied

conceptualisations, psychological correlates and perceived relevance of spirituality at

work in a sample of employed adults. Participants from a variety of occupations and

companies participated in the study. Variables studied included job satisfaction,

personality, attitudes towards the organisation and well-being. The researcher used a

slightly modified version of Mitroff and Denton’s (1999b) Spirituality at Work

42

Questionnaire resulting in spirituality at work, religiosity, attitude to organisation, and

self-expression subscales. Becker also used Fisher’s (1999a) Spiritual Health and Life-

Orientation Measure (SHALOM) (self, community, environment and transcendent

subscales) and Piedmont’s (1999) Spiritual Transcendence Scale (prayerfulness,

universality and connectedness subscales). Well-being was measured with a version of

the Scales of Psychological Well-being which contained six subscales: self-acceptance,

positive relations with other people, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life

and personal growth (Ryff 1989).

Becker (2002) verified significant positive relationships between the different measures

of spirituality (some included religion). Workplace spirituality was confirmed to

positively correlate with four of Costa and McCrae’s (1992) ‘Big Five’ personality

factors (extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and negatively

correlated with neuroticism. Workplace spirituality and individual spirituality

positively correlated with well-being. Conversely, religiosity was not significantly

correlated with well-being. Both workplace and individual spirituality were strong

predictors of well-being, over and above personality. Becker reported that participants

in values based organisations were more spiritual, more satisfied with their jobs,

experienced higher well-being. Participants also had a more positive attitude to their

organisation, religion, spirituality and values, and were able to express themselves at

work better than participants in profit-based organisations.

Most spirituality research discussed in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, and to be discussed in

Section 2.6, was conducted in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

The samples used in spirituality and spirituality at work studies consisted of business

students, corporate workplaces, hospital staff, high school teachers and a small variety

of occupations. It is therefore important for researchers to study spirituality at work

across different countries and a range of occupations to see whether experiences and

influences of spirituality at work are cross-cultural and universal.

It is evident that when compared to studies investigating individual spirituality, research

in the area of spirituality at work has received little attention (Kinjerski & Skrypnek

2004). Important areas of research lacking examination are: how employees can

43

develop spirituality at work; identifying factors that influence spirituality at work; and

identifying the influences of spirituality at work on other organisational factors.

Previous studies investigating individual spirituality’s influence on well-being and job

stress will be outlined in the following section.

2.6 Spirituality, Stress, Well-Being and Ill-Being Research

There has been much research conducted in the area of individual spirituality and its

relationship with stress and health. The following section will give a brief background

on the relationship between stress, well-being and ill-being, followed by a model

linking spirituality, stress and health. Then, an outline of how stress and health have

been typically measured in past research will be given, as well as the findings of

quantitative studies investigating direct influences of spirituality (and religion) on stress

and health. Lastly, research investigating moderation effects of spirituality (and

religion) on stress and well-being and ill-being will be described.

2.6.1 Spirituality, Stress, Well-Being and Ill-Being Background

The negative influence of stress on health has been widely acknowledged (e.g., Elfering,

Grebner, Semmer, Kaiser-Freiburghaus, Ponte & Witschi 2005; Jamal 2005; Karlsen et

al. 2006; Love, Irani, Standing & Themistocleous 2007; Noblet, Teo, McWilliams &

Rodwell 2005; Shields 2006), as has the influence of job stress on well-being or ill-

being. This has been evidenced across a variety of occupations. For example,

occupational stress amongst dentists was found to be linked to physical and mental ill-

being (see Palliser et al. 2005), burnout amongst nurses (see Siying, Wei, Zhiming,

Mianzhen & Yajia 2007) lower well-being of counselling agency employees (see

Elfering et al. 2005) and to depression in the employed general population (see Shields

2006).

Job stress has been widely linked with adverse effects on employee personal and

physical well-being, such as high blood pressure, migraine, recurrent virus infections

44

and stomach ulcers (see Kinman & Jones 2003), as well as being related to burnout, job

satisfaction, lack of organisational commitment, lower productivity and increased

turnover (see Blix, Cruise, Mitchell & Blix 1994; Elfering et al. 2005; Goddard, O'Brien

& Goddard 2006; Jamal 2005; Noblet et al. 2005). Employee well-being has been

associated with reduced health care-related costs and worker absenteeism, as well as

increased productivity (Hillier, Fewell, Cann & Shephard 2005). Schuler (1982) argues

that because job stress can be so costly to organisations, researchers should investigate

ways to deal with stress, such as how to affect potential stressors in organisations and

develop strategies by which employees can reduce their stress.

Not only is the direct link between stress and well-being well documented, but so is the

direct relationship between spirituality (and religion) and well-being (Wills 2009) and

spirituality (and religion) and stress (Graham, Furr, Flowers & Burke 2001). However,

when religious-based measures of spirituality have been utilised, relationships between

religion and well-being (Ryan & Fiorito 2003) and stress (Edmondson, Lawler, Jobe,

Younger, Piferi & Jones 2005) are often inconsistent. Therefore, many studies have

also investigated moderating effects of spirituality (or religion) on the influence of

stress on well-being and ill-being (Elam 2000; Ellison 1991; Fabricatore et al. 2000;

Hong 2008; Powers et al. 2007; Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002).

Religious measures of spirituality have been shown to result in positive, negative or no

significant influences on aspects of well-being and ill-being (see Cohen 2002; Hebert et

al. 2006; Ryan & Fiorito 2003). Possibly contributing to the lack of consistency of

religion and well-being findings is that different measures of well-being or ill-being

have often been used. Past studies often utilised measures of subjective well-being

(positive affect, negative affect and life-satisfaction), physical health, psychological

health, physical and emotional adjustment, health behaviours, and self-efficacy (e.g.,

Diener & Lucas 1999; Harrison, Koenig, Hays, Eme-Akwari & Pargament 2001;

Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002).

In linking stress, health and spirituality, Gall et al. (2005) proposed a conceptual

framework of the role spirituality played in relation to coping and health, based on

Lazarus and Folkman’s original (1984) transactional model of stress and coping. Gall

45

et al. (2005) contend that spirituality can be used at the personal level (e.g., beliefs),

primary and secondary appraisal level (e.g., spiritual appraisal), coping behaviour level

(e.g., self-reflection), connection level (e.g., interconnectedness), and meaning-making

(e.g., spiritual reappraisal). Spiritual appraisal involved initial attempts at making sense

of the stressor based on one’s spiritual beliefs. Such attempts at making meaning of the

stressor may help the individual to reduce initial levels of distress, which ultimately

influences well-being. A summary of Gall et al.’s (2005) spiritual appraisal model is

shown in Figure 2.6.1 below.

46

Fig

ure

2.6

.1 Spir

itual

appra

isal

model

(Sourc

e: a

dap

ted f

rom

Gal

l et

al.

2005, p. 89)

Str

esso

rs

Indiv

idual

Spir

itual

ity

- A

ppra

isal

- C

onnec

tions

- C

opin

g B

ehav

iour

- M

eanin

g M

akin

g

- P

erso

n F

acto

rs

Wel

l-B

eing &

Ill

-Bei

ng

- E

moti

onal

- S

oci

al

- P

hysi

cal

- S

pir

itual

47

A similar concept proposed by Ellison (1991) was positive reappraisal, where personal

religious or spiritual involvement helps prevent the harmful impact of stress through

positive reappraisal of stressful situations, rendering them less stressful. Similarly,

Zellars and Perrewe' (2003) maintain that a strong sense of spirituality may be the

resource which an individual could use to cope specifically with job related stressors.

For example, if an employee developed a strong sense of purpose in life through the

work they did, small or petty stressors (such as inter-group politics) would not result in

as much stress at work (Zellars & Perrewe' 2003). Alternatively, Herbert et al. (2006)

suggest personal religious or spiritual involvement helps prevent the negative influence

of stress on well-being by helping an individual believe they have the capabilities to

cope successfully.

To this researcher’s knowledge, it is yet to be tested whether Gall et al.’s (2005)

spiritual appraisal model can be applied to a work context specifically. It is credible

that the spiritual appraisal model can be applied to the individual, work-unit and

organisation-wide levels of spirituality at work, in order to buffer the effects of job

stress on both well-being and ill-being. For example, the meaningful work (individual)

aspect of spirituality at work can be likened to the ‘meaning making’ function of the

spiritual appraisal model. Sense of community (work-unit) is comparable to the

‘connection’ role, and alignment with organisational values (organisation-wide) is

similar to both the ‘connection’ and ‘person factors’ roles of the spiritual appraisal

model.

This three-dimensional spirituality theory may be demonstrated by moderation models

involving spirituality at work, job stress and well-being and ill-being. According to

Baron and Kenny (1986) moderators are variables which affect the strength or direction

of the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable.

Questions involving moderators address under what circumstances a variable most

strongly predicts an outcome variable. A moderator is therefore a variable that alters

the direction or strength of the relationship between a predictor and an outcome (Baron

& Kenny 1986; Frazier, Tix & Barron 2004). Frazier et al. (2004) argue that

moderators can be examined when there are unexpectedly weak relationships between a

predictor and an outcome variable. This may indicate it is more influential under

48

particular circumstances (Frazier et al. 2004). The following section will outline

quantitative measures of stress and health used in previous research.

2.6.2 Quantitative Measures of Stress and Well-Being

In terms of measuring stress, a multitude of scales were developed. These were often

self-report measures which related to specific stressors such as: anxiety, coping

resources, life stress, illness effects, social resources, burnout, parenting stress,

hardiness, resiliency, perceived social support, student life stress and women’s stress

(see Zalaquett & Wood 1997, 1998). Job-specific stress scales frequently included

measures of job satisfaction (see Blix et al. 1994; Winefield, Gillespie, Stough, Dua,

Hapuarachchi & Boyd 2003). Studies investigating job stress amongst academics or

teachers also used a variety of measures. Some studies used qualitative questions (see

Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua & Stough 2001; Kinman & Jones 2003), others

included simple measures of specific teacher-related stressors with no reliability

coefficients given (see Winefield & Jarrett 2001). Further studies used long (over 30

items) or complex, multi-domain measures with adequate reliability coefficients and

used specific stressors (see Abouserie 1996; Barnes, Agago & Coombs 1998; Gmelch,

Wilke & Lovrich 1986; Goddard et al. 2006; Tytherleigh 2007).

In contrast, Stanton et al.’s (2001) Stress in General Scale was designed to measure job

stress generally, as distinct from job satisfaction and particular work-related stressors or

strains (Holt 1993). Based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) definition and model of

stress, the Stress in General Scale demonstrated good reliability, was of medium length

(fifteen items) and consisted of two job stress domains.

Of similar trend were previous measures of well-being or ill-being. These scales

generally measured single aspects of well-being or ill-being such as subjective well-

being (see Ardelt 2003; Diener & Lucas 1999; Edmondson et al. 2005; Ellison 1991;

Fabricatore et al. 2000; Karlsen et al. 2006; Myers & Diener 1995; Warr, Cook & Wall

1979), affective well-being (see Powers et al. 2007), psychological well-being (see

Burke et al. 2003; Hong 2008; MacLachlan, McAuliffe, Page, Altschul & Tabony 1999;

49

Ryan & Fiorito 2003; Wang 2006), physical health (see Calicchia & Graham 2006;

Palliser et al. 2005), situation specific well-being (see Elfering et al. 2005) or even

happiness (see Cohen 2002).

Improving on these one-dimensional measures, Hardie et al.’s (2005) Multidimensional

Health States Scale was designed to investigate both well-being and ill-being in their

physiological and psychological forms concurrently. However, Hardie et al.’s scale

consisted of a measure of well-being (emotional, somatic, cognitive, social and sexual

dimensions), and a measure of ill-being (physical symptoms, depression and anxiety

dimensions). The following sections will outline previous research utilising some of the

above measures used to investigate the direct influence of spirituality (and religion) on

stress and well-being.

2.6.3 Direct Effects of Spirituality and Religion on Well-Being and Stress

Previous studies evidence a very clear direct influence of individual spirituality on

health. For example, Wilding, Muir-Cochrane and May (2006) conducted a

phenomenological study asking participants with mental illnesses ‘What does

spirituality mean for people with a mental illness?’ Wilding et al. found that spirituality

was experienced uniquely and became extremely important when participants became

mentally ill. Participants wanted to discuss their spirituality with others but were

reluctant to for fear that their mental health care professionals would not be accepting.

Spirituality was seen as highly individual, as it could be experienced as a journey and

was life-nourishing. Furthermore, Ryan and Fiorito (2003) ascertained that spirituality

(spiritual goals, means and ends) generally was significantly related to increased aspects

of well-being (positive effect, satisfaction with life, global self-esteem, identity

integration and self-actualisation) and decreased aspects of ill-being (negative affect,

hostility and anxiety).

In terms of positive influences of religion and spirituality on well-being and stress,

Edmondson et al. (2005) studied the roles of spirituality and religiosity in self-reported

physical health and stress. Edmondson et al. determined that religious well-being was

positively related to perceived stress. However, perceived stress was more strongly

50

related to existential well-being (non-religious spirituality) than it was to religious well-

being. Regression analyses illustrated that stress predicted negative aspects of health,

and that existential well-being predicted ill-health independently of stress. Those

participants with higher existential and religious well-being conveyed fewer instances of

stress and ill-health than those with lower existential and religious well-being.

In terms of religion having no influence on well-being or stress, MacLachlan et al.

(1999) investigated the effect of participation in a Tibetan Buddhist retreat on

perceptions of physiological and psychological well-being. MacLachlan et al. reported

no significant differences, positive or negative in stress, psychological and

physiological health in participants across time. Furthermore, MacFie, Amatekpor and

Kapalka (2005) found that religious-based spirituality did not significantly predict stress

in psychology graduate students when spirituality was measured with the Spiritual

Involvement and Beliefs Scale (Hatch et al. 1998) and stress with the Daily Stress

Inventory (Brantley, Earl, Catz & Bourdeaux 1997). The Spiritual Involvement and

Beliefs Scale (Hatch et al. 1998) measured spirituality as a different construct to religion

but measured factors of ‘internal/ritual’, ‘external/ritual’, ‘existential/mediative’ and

‘humility/personal application’.

The negative influence of religion on well-being and stress was evidenced by Ardelt

(2003) who showed that religious activities were actually linked to increased fear of

death and death avoidance, but intrinsic religious orientation (more likened to

spirituality or self-transcendence than religion) was positively related to acceptance of

approaching death. In addition, Ardelt’s study evidenced the positive influence of

spirituality on well-being and stress. Purpose in life (rather than religion) was linked to

elderly participants’ increased subjective well-being and was related to decreased fear

of death and death avoidance.

These results suggest that religion or religion-based spirituality measures are unlikely to

influence well-being or stress in a positive or consistent manner. Research

demonstrates that well-being and stress have stronger and more consistently positive

relationships with spirituality than religion. For example, Lustyk et al. (2006)

investigated the relationships among perceived stress, premenstrual symptomatology

51

and spiritual well-being in female university students. Lustyk et al. used Ellison’s

(1983) Spiritual Well-Being Scale (updated version of Paloutzian & Ellison 1982's

measure) to measure spirituality, which contained a religious and existential (non-

religious spirituality) component. Stress was measured with the Perceived Stress Scale

(Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein 1983). It was demonstrated that existential well-

being was more strongly related to perceived stress than was spiritual well-being

(religious and non-religious components combined) or religious well-being.

Participants with higher levels of existential well-being tended to have lower levels of

perceived stress.

Calicchia and Graham (2006) examined the relationship between life stress, spirituality

and social resources in a sample of graduate students. Participants who reported higher

levels of existential well-being experienced less stress from their spouse or partner and

extended family. Participants who reported higher levels of religious well-being

actually tended to report greater health problems. Calicchia and Graham concluded that

in terms of studying stress and spirituality, religious well-being was a distinct concept

from existential well-being.

Hierarchical regressions in Powers et al.’s (2007) study demonstrated that when social

justice commitment (like spirituality) and spiritual life integration (like religion) were

entered into the model, only social justice commitment predicted positive affect when

life stress was controlled for. Powers et al. concluded that positive affect seemed to be

influenced by proactive spiritual behaviours (e.g., trying to change things in the world

that are unjust) over and above ritualistic religious beliefs (e.g., feeling one’s God loves

them). In addition, the researchers confirmed that social justice commitment was the

only spirituality aspect to remain a significant predictor of negative affect when life

stress was controlled for. However, life stress remained a stronger predictor of negative

affect than social justice commitment. The following section will outline studies

investigating the moderating effects of spirituality (and religion) on stress and well-

being.

52

2.6.4 Investigating the Moderating Effects of Spirituality and Religion on

Stress and Well-Being

Many previous studies investigating spirituality (or religion), stress and well-being used

moderation analyses. Most authors argued for spirituality (or religious) moderation

models based on the notion of spiritual appraisal and coping. For example, Calicchia

and Graham (2006) reasoned that moderation analyses were appropriate based on the

preceding research which demonstrated that the influence of stress on well-being was

effected by internal person factors (such as intelligence, previous experience and coping

strategies) and external factors (such as social support and occupation). Calicchia and

Graham also cited Gall et al.’s (2005) spiritual appraisal model as reason to investigate

moderation models.

Moreover, Youngmee and Seidlitz (2002) also suggested that spirituality and religion

could buffer the effects of stress on health through its influence on four domains:

cognition, emotion, behaviour, and transcendence. Furthermore, Powers et al. (2007)

based their moderation models on a religious ‘Meaning Making Coping Model’

proposed by Park (2005), in which people coped with stressful life events through

finding meaning and purpose in them. The findings of various moderation studies will

be outlined in the following sections, firstly by outlining the moderating effects of

religious-based spirituality on the influence of stress on well-being, followed by the

moderating effects of spirituality (non-religious-based) on job stress and well-being.

2.6.4.1 Religious-Based Spirituality Moderating Effects

Ellison (1991) investigated the role of religiosity in buffering the harmful effects of

traumatic stress on subjective well-being. This was based on a stress-buffering model

of well-being, in which personal religious or spiritual involvement was proposed to help

prevent the harmful impact of stress on well-being. The negative influence would be

buffered by positive reappraisal of potentially stressful situations, making the stressor

appear less stressful (Ellison 1991; Gall et al. 2005; Hebert et al. 2006). Alternatively,

53

buffering would occur by helping an individual believe he or she had the capabilities to

cope successfully (Ellison 1991; Gall et al. 2005; Hebert et al. 2006). Ellison

ascertained that spiritual belief systems were directly related to subjective well-being,

while church attendance and organised religious factors led to subjective well-being

indirectly by strengthening religious beliefs. It was shown that religious faith (but not

divine interaction) buffered the negative effects of trauma on well-being.

Fabricatore et al. (2000) studied religious-based spirituality as a moderator of the

relationship between stressors and subjective well-being. They developed the Spiritual

Involvement Scale to measure spirituality. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener,

Emmons, Larsen & Griffin 1985) and the Depression-Happiness Scale (McGreal &

Joseph 1993) were used to measure subjective well-being. Spirituality (life integration

of God and social justice) positively influenced satisfaction with life and was unrelated

to affective well-being. Results indicated that stress, individual spirituality and the

interaction between the two, contributed significantly to satisfaction with life, but only

the contribution of stress alone significantly predicted affective well-being. Fabricatore

et al. also reported a significant negative relationship between stress and satisfaction

with life for people low in individual spirituality, but not for people with high individual

spirituality. The authors concluded that spirituality did not moderate the relationship

between stress and subjective well-being, but in line with previous research, they

pointed out that stress did have a negative impact on subjective well-being.

Ellison, Boardman, Williams and Jackson (2001) investigated moderating links between

multiple dimensions of religious involvement and psychological distress and well-

being. The data was obtained from the General Social Survey (a national cross-

sectional sample replicated annually). The respondents consisted of adults over 18

years of age from a culturally diverse city known for being the centre of a

manufacturing industry. The researchers reported no stress-buffering effects involving

frequency of prayer or frequency of church attendance. However, a strong belief in

eternal life buffered the harmful effects of chronic health problems and financial

problems on psychological well-being, but not on distress. A strong belief in eternal

life also reduced the negative impact of work-related problems on psychological

distress, but not on well-being. There was no evidence to suggest that religious

54

involvement buffered the effects of multiple stressors on distress or well-being.

As with the direct relationships between religious-based spirituality and well-being, it

seems that moderation effects of religious-based spirituality are also inconsistent. The

fact that religious-based spirituality does not consistently moderate the influence

between stress and well-being could be attributed to the tenuous relationship between

religion and stress (Ryan & Fiorito 2003). Studies have also investigated moderation

models with individual spirituality rather than religion. The moderating effects of

individual spirituality (non-religious-based) on stress and well-being will now be

outlined.

2.6.4.2 Individual Spirituality Moderating Effects

Youngmee and Seidlitz (2002) investigated whether spirituality moderated the effect of

stress on well-being and ill-being (positive and negative affect and physical adjustment)

amongst college students. Youngmee and Seidlitz used their own Spiritual

Transcendence Index, which contained items referring specifically to a God, but not a

specific religion. The authors demonstrated that spirituality was not directly related to

stress, ill-being or well-being, but instead was a moderator variable. They confirmed

spirituality was related to ill-being and well-being as it interacted with stress.

Therefore, the researchers concluded that spirituality buffered the adverse influence of

stress on well-being and ill-being.

Other research has reported that the moderation effects of individual spirituality on

stress only influence some aspects of health. For example, Elam (2000) studied the

relationship between individual spirituality, life stress and emotional well-being among

undergraduate college psychology students. Spirituality was also measured with Hatch

et al.’s (1998) Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs scale which measured non-religious

individual spirituality. Spirituality was a predictor of increased positive affect,

satisfaction with life and decreased depression and anxiety. Yet, spirituality did not

moderate either the relationship between daily stress and anxiety, or the relationship

55

between daily stress and negative affect. However, spirituality did moderate the

relationship between daily stress and other aspects of well-being and ill-being

(depression, positive affect and life satisfaction). Furthermore, Elam also established

that the variables studied were better predicted by spirituality than religion.

Hong (2008) examined the moderating effects of self-transcendence meaning on

psychological well-being of college students under academic stress. Self-transcendence

meaning of life was verified to moderate the relationship between psychological well-

being (mental-health problems, depression and self-esteem effects) and academic stress.

Though, some aspects of well-being (sense of adequacy and anxiety) were not

moderated.

To sum up the research on stress, health, individual spirituality and religion, findings

have indicated that not only was the direct link between stress and well-being

considerably documented, but so was spirituality’s beneficial effects on stress and well-

being. Mixed findings were evidenced between aspects of religion and well-being.

Individual spirituality generally moderated the relationship between stress and well-

being and ill-being. Though in most studies, not all aspects of well-being or ill-being

were moderated. The particular aspects moderated were not consistent across the

studies. Research indicated that well-being and stress have stronger (and more

consistent and beneficial) relationships with individual spirituality than religion or

religious-based spirituality. The following section will review literature surrounding

spirituality, stress and work-life issues.

56

2.7 Spirituality, Stress, Work-Life Balance and Work-Life Conflict

Research

Over the past two decades, the changing face of the workforce has further increased the

need for work-life polices (Clark 2001). For example, more women and minorities in

the workforce, increasing family responsibilities of employees, the aging population and

the casualisation of the workforce, are reasons for increased diversity of the current

workforce (Abbott & Di Cieri 2008; De Cieri, Holmes, Abbott & Pettit 2005; Kramar

1998; Parkes & Langford 2008; Saltzstein, Ting & Saltzstein 2001). In addition to

worldwide demographic changes in the employment pool and fierce competition have

encouraged organisations to create policies that assist employees to balance their work

and personal lives (Harrington et al. 2002; Parkes & Langford 2008; Saltzstein et al.

2001). The following sections will describe the need for work-life balance initiatives in

organisations. The existing research on work-life balance and work-life conflict will be

outlined, followed by a description of literature evidencing relationships between work-

life balance and spirituality.

2.7.1 The Need for Work-Life Initiatives

Work-life balance has been historically considered a woman’s issue but recent studies

showed that women and men both experience problems balancing work and personal

life (Burke et al. 2003; Frone 2003; Hill et al. 2001). More recent studies reported no

significant difference in levels of work-life balance and work-life conflict for men and

women (see Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Brough, O'Driscoll & Kalliath 2005;

Tytherleigh 2007), while earlier studies report that women experience higher levels of

work-life conflict than men (see Higgins, Duxbury & Lee 1994; Rothbard 2001).

Progressive organisations seeking competitive advantage have begun introducing work-

life balance programs which help both male and female employees better integrate their

work-family responsibilities (Abbott & Di Cieri 2008; Parkes & Langford 2008; Stone

2008). In order for organisations to attract and retain skilled and adaptable employees,

57

work-life balance programs should be designed for a diverse workforce (Abbott & Di

Cieri 2008; De Cieri et al. 2005). Work-life initiatives are important as they make

employees feel valued, increase productivity, reduce absenteeism, give organisations a

reputation of being an employer of choice and help organisations retain good employees

(Byrne 2005).

Examples of HR initiatives aimed at promoting work-life balance include assisting with

child care and elder care, telecommuting, flexible working hours, compressed working

hours and job sharing (Byrne 2005; Clark 2000). The Brisbane City Council Public

Sector received an Australian HR award for implementing leading flexible working

arrangements which aimed at helping employees balance their work and family

commitments (Hutchinson 2005). Telecommunication giant Telstra, has also won

awards for implementing work-life balance strategies aimed at raising awareness about

work-life balance issues, in addition to creating innovative work-life balance

management approaches (Anderson 2002). Telstra (2008) provided flexibility programs

(such as flexible working options, maternity and parental leave, breastfeeding or

expressing at work, prayer rooms and carer’s leave) as well as supportive diversity

policies (for disability, age, gender and sexual orientation or gender identity). The

following section outlines findings of work-life balance and work-life conflict research.

2.7.2 Research on Work-Life Issues

As a result of the increased need for employee work-life balance initiatives, work-life

balance and work-life conflict have been increasingly studied in the last fifteen years

(see Caproni 2004; Hayman 2005; Kramar 1998). The National Study of the Changing

Workforce conducted by the Families and Work Institute surveyed employees from a

range of jobs about work-life issues. The majority of participants felt frustrated and

stressed, had too little time with their children, had too little time with their partners,

and just over half felt they had too little time for themselves (Prescott, Shaw & Allikas

2008). Participants worked between an average of 43.5 to 49 hours per week, most said

they would like to work fewer hours, and just under half felt stretched to their limits

between their work and personal lives (Prescott et al. 2008).

58

Work-life balance and work-life conflict are important issues for organisations, at the

organisational and employee levels. For example, Moore (2007) argues that

organisations that provide long-term work-life balance cultures, create employee-

company loyalty and positive employee attitudes to work. In addition, the combination

of longer working hours and increased work pressure is interfering with employees’

personal lives (Pocock 2005). The increase in job stress is linked to work-life balance

and conflict. For example, Wong and Lin (2007) established that job stress had a direct

detrimental influence on work-life conflict. Furthermore, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985)

demonstrated that work-family conflict existed when stress from participation in one

role made it difficult to fulfil requirements of another. For example, where job stress

influences the fulfilling of personal-life duties. Wallace (2005) found that job stress had

direct harmful influences on work-life conflict.

Parkes and Langford (2008) suggested work-life balance benefits organisations

indirectly, through increased well-being, decreased job stress and decreased burnout of

its employees. Good work-life balance and low work-life conflict are also linked to job

satisfaction, organisational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour, increased

diversity and equity, productivity, improved bottom line, and lower turnover intention

(see Allen, Herst, Bruck & Sutton 2000; Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Waltman &

Sullivan 2007).

Satisfactory work-life balance and low work-life conflict were also linked to non-work

outcomes, such as life, family, marital and leisure satisfaction and family performance

(see Allen et al. 2000). High work-life conflict and low work-life balance are linked to

reducing job satisfaction, lower organisational commitment, lower productivity and

performance, lower career satisfaction and success, and higher absenteeism and

intention to quit, as well as employee burnout, job stress, poorer physiological and

psychological health, substance abuse, and diminished family functioning (see Allen et

al. 2000; Hobsor, Delunas & Kesic 2001; Lingard, Brown, Bradley, Bailey & Townsend

2007; Prescott et al. 2008; Tytherleigh et al. 2005; Waltman & Sullivan 2007; Wang

2006). Sufficient work-life balance and little work-life conflict is related to increased

employee self-efficacy, motivation, and positive interpersonal interactions, better

59

performance, feelings of personal accomplishment, better mood and higher well-being

(e.g., Allis & O'Driscoll 2008).

Specifically, much of this research on work-life balance and work-life conflict centred

on flexible working arrangements and employee assistance programs (see De Cieri et al.

2005; Frone 2003; Hill et al. 2001; Kramar 1998; Saltzstein et al. 2001; Waltman &

Sullivan 2007). Burke et al. (2003) showed that more supportive organisational values

of work-life balance were linked to greater family satisfaction, lower job stress, greater

job satisfaction, less intention to quit, lower ill-being and greater well-being.

A number of work-life balance and work-life conflict studies used case analyses,

qualitative methods or interviews and often sampled HR managers implementing the

work-life balance programs, instead of the employees who benefited from the programs

(see Caproni 2004; De Cieri et al. 2005; Hill, Miller, Weiner & Colihan 1998; Lingard

et al. 2007; Moore 2007; Pocock 2005; Saltzstein et al. 2001). The few existing self-

report measures of work-life balance and conflict often focussed specifically on family

instead of personal life (see Clark 2001; Hanson et al. 2006), were single-item (not

reliable) scales (Wang 2006), or consisted of several measures of satisfaction, instead of

work-life balance (see Perrone et al. 2006). Work-life conflict measures are frequently

complicated, have four different aspects (e.g., work-to-family conflict, family-to-work

conflict, work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation), are family-

specific, or have low reliability (see Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Brough et al. 2005;

Hill 2005; Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian 1996). These issues have made work-life

balance and work-life conflict difficult to study consistently.

There are also many different work-life models discussed in previous literature that

proposed particular relationships between both work-life balance and work-life conflict

and other variables, such as role overload, positive work-life interactions, job

satisfaction, career satisfaction and success, job performance, job behaviours, individual

effects, working-parents, family satisfaction and success (Korabik, Lero & Whitehead

2008). Korabik et al. (2008) dedicated a whole book to the discussion of theoretical

models involving antecedents, outcomes and moderators of work-life issues, as well as

practices and policies involving work-life balance and work-life conflict. Despite the

60

extensive previous literature about work-life research and theories, there are very few

models or theories that involve spirituality and its relationship with work-life issues.

Spillover theory (Zedeck 1992) has not been previously investigated in relation to

spirituality at work. Little empirical research has been conducted in the area of

spirituality, work-life balance and work-life conflict. The following section will outline

the links between spirituality and work-life issues, as well as outlining the sparse

existing research in this area of study.

2.7.3 Spirituality and Work-Life Issues

In terms of linking work-life issues in HRM to spirituality, Laabs (1995) reasoned that

the compartmentalisation of employee work life from personal life (whole-self), leads to

decreased productivity. Spirituality is important for work-life practices as it can lessen

the compartmentalisation of employees’ lives (Marques 2005; Singhal 2005).

Integration of employee’s authentic selves with their work lives is achieved when there

is alignment between their personal values and that of their workplaces (Dehler &

Welsh 2003). Dehler and Welsh (1994; 2003) contended that in order to bring

employees’ whole-selves into the workplace, organisations need to address employees’

physical, mental, emotional and spiritual needs. Pfeffer (2003) asserted that forcing

employees to separate their work and authentic identities is not only difficult and

stressful for employees, but sends the message that employees need to behave

differently to their individual nature and not be their authentic selves. This, Pfeffer

(2003, p.32) argued “destroys the human spirit” in that organisations deny the value of

individual employees and force them to be something they are not. In other words,

incorporating spirituality at work enables employees to bring more of their whole-selves

to work.

A way of increasing work-life balance in organisations is to create a spiritual

organisational culture which promotes giving back to employees control to develop

their own individualised meaning and personal growth in both work and personal life

(Cash & Gray 2000; Marques 2005). According to Cash and Gray (2000) employees

are currently seeking more meaning in life and stronger integration of their spiritual and

61

work lives.

There is evidence of growing employee and organisational demand for meaningful work

and nurturing work environments which promote work-life balance (Kinjerski &

Skrypnek 2004). However, little research has been conducted on spirituality at work

and work-life balance or work-life conflict. In spite of this, HRM work-life balance

programs appear to be linked to the concept of spirituality at work. Authors Briggins

(1996), Burack (1999), Laabs (1995) and Marques (2005) typically asserted that

incorporating spirituality into the workplace involves giving employees flexibility to

balance work-life issues and to tailor work around their own individual needs. Byrne

(2005) claims that in addition to work, family and friends, health and spirituality are

also aspects of work-life balance. Byrne explains how important work-life balance is by

arguing that one can choose to stay or leave a bad work situation, but with personal

relationships or with health, one might not have that luxury.

Modern work-life balance programs, such as increased use of technology, working from

home and onsite gyms, have made it easier to “never” leave work, rather than creating

work-life balance and minimising work-life conflict (Hill et al. 1998; Pfeffer 2003, p.

39). A different approach to fostering work-life balance may then be required. As

Mitroff and Denton (1999b) demonstrated, employees have an increasing desire to

express and develop their whole-selves at work. Yet, few organisations allow that to

happen (Mitroff & Denton 1999b). Laabs (1995) maintained that forcing employees to

closet their personal identity (which includes spirituality) from their work identity,

ultimately decreases organisational productivity.

Business leaders are also aware of the link between work-life issues and spirituality.

For example, James Autry, the former president of the Meredith Corp. Magazine Group,

suggested “spreading a little profit, love and understanding – though not in that order”

in an American Management Association membership briefing called ‘Life and work: a

manager’s search for meaning’ (Briggins 1996, p. 8). Honesty, trust and individual

treatment of employees were his methods of achieving community at work. Autry

contended that managers would not develop into leaders without dealing with the issue

of work-life balance. Autry argued that to be successful, managers needed to be

62

compassionate, supportive and understanding, as well as making sure tasks are

completed.

Theoretical models also outline the link between spirituality at work and work-life

balance. For example, the Kaleidoscope Career Model, proposed by Sullivan and

Mainiero (2008) suggests that women shifted the patterns of their careers by rotating

different areas of their life in order to suit their work and personal life needs. The

model was designed as a way of understanding female employees’ needs and how

organisations could fulfil these needs (with human resource development programs) in

order to gain strategic competitive advantage. Sullivan and Mainiero asserted that the

three areas of women workers’ lives in the model were authenticity (being true to

oneself and finding meaning through work), balance (work and non-work decisions

form a healthy whole) and challenge (activities fostering autonomy while learning and

growing). The authors argue that traditional career stage models, which form the basis

of many modern human resource development practices, were created by studying

men’s careers and do not fit the complexities of the current workforce. This new model

of career paths was created to better match the unique career patterns of women, but

could be applicable to other groups of employees, due to the diverse workforce today.

Sullivan and Mainiero (2008) contend that the model has three parameters, which

combine in different ways throughout an individual’s life, reflecting the unique patterns

of his/her career. The model suggests that each of these parameters is active throughout

an individual’s career but certain issues predominate at different points in the life span.

Usually one parameter remains the focus of an individual’s attention, with the

remaining parameters taking on a secondary role at that time. In this respect,

authenticity refers to an individual’s focus on spirituality at work. This model clearly

demonstrates the link between work-life balance, work-life conflict and spirituality at

work.

To summarise this section, both work-life balance and work-life conflict are important

issues for employees, HR managers and organisations. Based on the few studies

available on spirituality at work and work-life issues, spirituality at work had

similarities with work-life balance programs and links with work-life conflict.

63

Employees have an increasing desire to express and develop their whole-selves at work,

but few organisations are fostering this. Forcing employees to separate their personal

identity and spirituality from their work-lives, can lead to inner conflict and stress.

Work-life balance and work-life conflict have links with job stress, which generally

indicate that increased stress has negative influences on work-life balance and work-life

conflict. This link is likely to occur through negative spillover (Balmforth & Gardner

2006; Hill et al. 2001). Stress and work-life conflict ultimately decrease organisational

productivity. It is clear that spirituality at work has potential benefits for work-life

issues at both the individual and organisational levels. The studies discussed in this

chapter so far, investigated participants from many different occupations. Therefore,

research specifically involving academic samples will be discussed in the following

section.

2.8 Job Stress, Work-Life Practices, Well-Being, Ill-Being and

Spirituality in Universities

Much research on job stress and well-being was conducted on professions such as

teaching and management (e.g., Goddard et al. 2006; Gulielmi & Tatrow 1998; Hayes

2007; Kokkinos 2007; Lazuras 2006; Mohr 2007; Schwarzer & Hallum 2008; Wong

2007), but little has been conducted on higher education academic staff. The evidence

suggests that work-related stress and demands on academics has significantly increased

in recent years worldwide, and many believe that it will continue to intensify in the

future (see Houston, Meyer & Paewai 2006; Kinman & Jones 2003, 2008; Mostert,

Rothmann, Mostert & Nell 2008; Winefield et al. 2003). These increasing demands

have also been linked to work-life issues among academics, such as juggling many

different tasks and role conflicts (O'Laughlin & Bischoff 2005). Having a sense of

community appears to be important for academics in coping with demands and conflicts

(Schuler 1982), but universities are not currently fostering spirituality in the workplace

(Astin & Astin 1999). The following sections will discuss the increasing stress of

academic life, work-life issues in academia and the apparent need of spirituality in

universities.

64

2.8.1 The Increasing Stress of Academia Life

The increasing demands in universities over the last twenty years have been attributed

to major reductions in government funding of public universities, international

competition and technological developments (Briggs 2009; Churchman 2006; Houston

et al. 2006; Jacobs & Winslow 2004; Tytherleigh et al. 2005; Winefield et al. 2003).

Churchman (2006) argues that even universities immersed in academic tradition, are

being forced in the current profit-focussed economic climate, to enter the education

market. In other words, universities are being pushed to contemplate making profits

like corporations and business in the global economy, rather than to concentrate on

education.

Also blamed for the increasing stress on academics is the intensifying accountability of

educators, rising pressure to publish research, mounting workloads, frequent

restructuring, use of short-term contracts and added external scrutiny (Houston et al.

2006; Jacobs & Winslow 2004; Tytherleigh et al. 2005; Winefield et al. 2003).

Academics are now expected to fulfil multiple role demands within the work setting, for

example, teaching, research and consultation (O'Laughlin & Bischoff 2005).

Academics are also confronting the pressures of competing demands, balancing

teaching with research and attempting to balance traditional workloads with the

presence of new pressures, such as teaching internationally and via online methods

(Briggs 2009). New university directions require academic staff to develop a range of

unrelated skills to undertake a diverse range of roles, such as community service and

research (Briggs 2009; Churchman 2006). Churchman (2006) reasons that as issues

such as accountability and viability are increasing in academia, this in turn can cause

theory development and the teaching of knowledge to be compromised.

Mostert et al. (2008) add that the increased levels of stress among academics can also be

attributed to organisational change. Organisational change in universities includes

increased domestic and international competition, restructuring, cuts in government

funding, downsizing and changes in management style and structure. Increased

competition, Mostert et al. claim, has also been characterised by lay-offs, mergers,

65

rapidly changing technology and ever-increasing demands for higher quality products

and services in higher education.

Studies show that on average, academics experience higher levels of stress than general

university staff (e.g., Gillespie et al. 2001; Winefield et al. 2003). Sixty-six percent of

academics were reported to experience job stress at least fifty percent of work time

(Blix et al. 1994). Abouserie (1996) found that workload was the largest contributor of

stress amongst university academics, followed by family, time, money, relationships

and health. The main causes of job stress were research, time, relationships with

colleagues, teaching, bureaucracy, students, lack of funding, resources and support

services, work overload, poor management practice, insufficient recognition and

reward, and job insecurity (Abouserie 1996; Gillespie et al. 2001).

Stress among academics is an important issue as higher levels of stress can lead to low

productivity, increased absenteeism and turnover, as well as individual employee

problems, such as alcohol and drug abuse, and health problems (Mostert et al. 2008).

Astin and Astin (1999) also reported time pressures, competition between work and

family life, research and publication, administration responsibilities, students and

teaching, tenure and the peer review process, colleagues and institutional climate as

sources of academics’ stress. Some of the effects of stress reported were ill-health,

divorce, over consumption of caffeine and sleep deprivation (Astin & Astin 1999). The

following section will discuss work-life issues in academic life.

2.8.2 Work-Life Issues in Academia

Work-life balance has been linked to job stress specifically among academics.

O'Laughlin and Bischoff (2005) claim that work-life balance and job stress issues are

particularly relevant for academics. The researchers argue that juggling several

different tasks, whether from the same or different roles (e.g., work and personal life),

creates conflict. Particularly among academics, work-life conflict occurs when

expected behaviours from one role to another are incompatible, or performance in one

66

role is affected by stress in another role, or when time pressures from one role make it

impossible to fulfil expectations in another role. O'Laughlin and Bischoff investigated

the influence and tenure in academics’ experiences of balancing parenthood and career.

The researchers showed that work-life conflict among academics was primarily

predicted by job stress (over and above average work hours, household responsibility,

young children, satisfaction with day care and support of partner).

Other studies have demonstrated that academics experience problems balancing their

work and personal lives. Jacobs and Winslow (2004) reported that on average, full-time

academics (regardless of rank or discipline type) worked in excess of fifty hours per

week. O'Laughlin and Bischoff (2005) estimated that the average academic worked

approximately fifty-five hours per week. Houston et al. (2006) found that a large

proportion of academics were working more than ten hours of overtime in addition to

their normal full-time hours. Kinman and Jones (2003) ascertained that academics felt

they had little choice in working long hours, and over half of the sample reported that

their personal lives suffer as a result of their work. In addition, outside factors are

equally important in contributing to work-life balance or conflict, such as personal

health or health of family members (Byrne 2005).

Work-life balance is an important issue for both male and female academics.

Tytherleigh (2007) reported no significant gender differences amongst academic levels

of work-life balance, yet O'Laughlin and Bischoff (2005) showed that women

academics reported greater academic stress and perceptions of less institutional support

for work-life balance when compared to men. Miller and Hollenshead (2005) claimed

that even though work-life balance issues were not limited to females, female academics

experienced work-life balance differently to males. For example, female academics

were more likely to delay having a family when compared to male academics (Miller &

Hollenshead 2005).

Work-life balance is also linked to stress and well-being among academics. Tytherleigh

et al. (2005) report that academics were significantly stressed about work-life balance

issues and that work-life balance was significantly related to academics’ physical and

psychological health (ill-being and well-being). Academics who reported more work-

67

life conflict tended to be less healthy, less satisfied with their jobs, and more likely to

have seriously considered leaving academia (Kinman & Jones 2008). Conversely,

academics who perceived more control over their work, better flexibility and support

from their workplaces, tended to report better work-life balance (Kinman & Jones

2008). Waltman and Sullivan (2007) claim that flexible work-life environments are

related to decreased employee stress and improved an academic unit’s ability to achieve

diversity and equity, and increased the productivity of academic staff. Work-life

balance and conflict are important issues for academics as higher levels of work-life

conflict and imbalance could not only contribute to lower quality job performance, but

also result in denial of promotion, which impacts both an academic’s work and personal

lives (Helfat 2002; O'Laughlin & Bischoff 2005). The need for spirituality in academic

life will be discussed in the following section.

2.8.3 The Need for Spirituality in Academic Life

Acceptance of the need for spirituality at work to aid work-life issues appears to be a

challenge among academics. Academics are trying to find ways to make their lives and

workplaces complete (Astin & Astin 1999). Houston et al. (2006) showed that

academics were more satisfied with intrinsic rewards (such as flexibility, responsibility

and variety) than extrinsic rewards (such as salary and chances for advancement). Astin

and Astin (1999) interviewed academic staff from four universities and colleges in the

United States of America about their expressions of spirituality and finding meaning in

their work. Many participants saw their research and teaching as a means of expressing

their spirituality or finding meaning in life (Astin & Astin 1999).

When Australian academics (chosen for being exemplary teachers) were interviewed

about what they thought effective teaching encompassed, they reported very spiritually

grounded ideas, such as love for one’s discipline, valuing students and their

perspectives, and making learning possible (Ballantyne, Bain & Packer 1999). These

can be likened to the spirituality model used in the present study (meaningful work,

sense of community and alignment with organisational values). Love for one’s

discipline includes enthusiasm, creating and maintaining student interest, which

68

corresponds to the meaningful work (individual) aspect of spirituality. Valuing students

and their perspectives consisted of caring for students, pitching at the students’ level,

and relating teaching to students’ everyday experience, which corresponds to fostering a

sense of community (or work-unit spirituality at work aspect). Making learning

possible comprised tailoring teaching to the learning that is desired and doing what is

possible to ensure that such learning occurs. This can be related to the alignment with

organisation (or organisation-wide) aspect of spirituality at work. These exemplary

teachers used their own personal experiences of learning and chose to improve on

traditional teaching methods.

Spirituality at work (sense of community) seems to be important for academics in

coping with work stress. For example, Schuler (1982) argued that employees who have

socially supportive relationships are more psychologically capable of dealing with

stress. This is due to the feelings of acceptance social support fosters, and the

awareness that there are colleagues available to help if needed. Some academics

recommend maintaining a sense of purpose and staying away from conflict and

prioritising work and personal life goals as means of coping with stress (Astin & Astin

1999). Yet, in a more recent study of academics, work-life balance was poor and most

participants wished for more separation between their work and home lives (Kinman &

Jones 2008). This contradicted Mitroff and Denton’s (1999b) findings that participants

wished to integrate their whole-selves at work.

Academia traditionally discourages integration of personal life (let alone spirituality)

into work-life, and encourages this unauthentic (or inconsistent with one’s own beliefs

and values) view of work in their students (Astin & Astin 1999). The very nature of

academia was argued to create many different definitions of academics’ selves

(Churchman 2006), and thus forced the compartmentalisation of academics’ whole-

selves at work (Laabs 1995). The most common perceived obstacle to spiritual

development in academics seem to be time pressures (Astin & Astin 1999). Churchman

(2006) argues that academics are consistently compromising their work in order to meet

multiple roles (e.g., making a difference, social interaction and corporatism).

Ballantyne et al. (1999) confirmed that among academics there was often a conflict

69

between what was rewarded and what was considered good in academic teaching. The

push for research and administrative duties, takes precedence over good teaching, and is

often rewarded with promotion (Astin & Astin 1999; Ballantyne et al. 1999). Cut-backs

on university funding constrains quality teaching and striving for incorporation of

spirituality at work (Winefield et al. 2003). What universities typically request from

academics tends to conflict with what gives academics purpose in life and intrinsically

motivated activities often go unnoticed by the universities (Churchman 2006).

Higher education institutions were rarely reported as facilitating or enhancing spiritual

development (Astin & Astin 1999). Conflicts between personal and organisational

values (e.g., quality of teaching and administration work demands) were reported

frequently as causing stress and hindering spiritual development (Astin & Astin 1999).

Most academics reported a considerable amount of stress in life overall, especially in

terms of value conflicts, maintaining authenticity, finding meaning and expressing

spirituality (Astin & Astin 1999). Churchman (2006) verified that academics typically

believed that universities should be places of higher ideals, in which behaviours would

be ethical and not self-serving. These academics became disappointed with their daily

work routines, as universities were increasingly focusing on profit making and

competition. Therefore, based on the research available investigating work-life balance

and spirituality amongst academics, it seems that the same desire for spirituality at

work, that is occurring in business, is also occurring in academic samples. However,

academics may be slower in accepting this new trend. The following section will

summarise the main findings of this chapter and outline their relevance to the current

study.

70

2.9 Summary of Chapter and Purpose of Present Study

To sum up this chapter, a new interest in spirituality at work is evident in the increasing

number of books, magazines, popular press, websites and journal articles dedicated to

the discussion spirituality in the workplace. Spirituality is also evidenced in evolving

management perspectives and in the contemporary spirituality-specific management

theories that are currently emerging. Spirituality at work currently has important

benefits for HRM practices, and it is likely that spirituality will become more important

for all organisations in the future. Spiritual HR interventions have been critiqued for

being implemented as short-term fads, used purely by organisations to make profits for

the consultants. Thus, it seems that spirituality at work is best implemented in the

workplace as long-term interventions aimed at positively impacting employees and the

organisation in an authentic way. This is relevant to the current study as the main aim is

to investigate spirituality at work’s relationships with HRM issues.

There were many existing spirituality scales available, but few which were dedicated to

measuring spirituality in a work-context specifically. Milliman’s (2003) measure had

advantages over other measures because it focused on non-religious spirituality in a

work context specifically, was multi-dimensional and demonstrated reliability and

validity. Much research indicated beneficial links between individual spirituality, stress

and well-being, supporting Gall et al.’s (2005) spiritual appraisal model. Few studies

were conducted on spirituality at work, well-being and job stress specifically, but those

that did also indicated beneficial influences of spirituality at work on health and stress.

A small number of spirituality studies were conducted in Australia. Not much research

investigated the relationship between spirituality and work-life issues, and very little

empirical research was conducted on work-life issues. In addition, few researchers

studied spirituality amongst academic teaching staff specifically. The current study

aims to add to spirituality at work literature by addressing these areas of deficit.

For the purpose of this research, spirituality at work was defined as the

interconnectedness between employees in a non-religious way, employees becoming

their ‘complete selves’ at work without reprimand, being socially responsible in work

71

and the social community. It also involved finding meaning and fulfilling one’s

ultimate purpose in life through work, appreciating life and individual differences

among the organisational and social communities, embracing a sense of trust that things

inside and outside of the organisation will work out for the better, and having personal

values aligned with that of the organisation.

Stress was defined as an event or situation that is appraised as threatening, demanding

or challenging. Stress can manifest in a person either positively or negatively, and is

therefore a good indicator of health (Hardie et al. 2005). Hardie et al. (2005) described

health as a multidimensional concept which includes social, emotional and physical

states of ill-being and well-being. Work-life balance was the degree to which an

individual was able to balance simultaneously the emotional, behavioural and time

demands of both paid work and family or personal duties (Hill et al. 2001). Work-life

conflict was where participation in work, home and personal life contributed

detrimentally to each other (Balmforth & Gardner 2006). The following concept map

illustrates the variables and respective relationships that will be investigated by the

present study.

72

Fig

ure

2.9

M

oder

ati

on m

odel

of

spir

ituali

ty a

t w

ork

N

ote

:

M

od

erat

or

infl

uen

ce

Dir

ect

infl

uen

ce

Spirituality at Work

Individual Spirituality at Work Work-U

nit Spirituality at Work Organisation-W

ide Spirituality at Work

Work-life balance

Do h

igher

lev

els

spir

itual

ity a

t w

ork

buff

er t

he

infl

uen

ce

of

job (

thre

at a

nd

pre

ssure

) st

ress

on

work

-lif

e bal

ance

amongst

acad

emic

s?

Well-being

Do h

igher

lev

els

spir

itual

ity a

t

work

buff

er t

he

infl

uen

ce o

f jo

b

(thre

at a

nd p

ress

ure

) st

ress

on

wel

l-bei

ng a

mongst

aca

dem

ics?

Ill-being

Do h

igher

lev

els

spir

itual

ity a

t

work

buff

er t

he

infl

uen

ce o

f jo

b

(thre

at a

nd p

ress

ure

) st

ress

on i

ll-

bei

ng a

mongst

aca

dem

ics?

Job Threat Stress

Are

hig

her

lev

els

of

spir

itual

ity

at w

ork

rel

ated

to l

ow

er l

evel

s

of

job t

hre

at s

tres

s in

aca

dem

ic

staf

f?

Job Pressure Stress

Are

hig

her

lev

els

of

spir

itual

ity

at w

ork

rel

ated

to l

ow

er l

evel

s

of

job p

ress

ure

str

ess

in

acad

emic

sta

ff?

Work-life

Conflict

Do h

igher

lev

els

spir

itual

ity a

t

work

buff

er t

he

infl

uen

ce o

f jo

b

(thre

at a

nd

pre

ssure

) st

ress

on w

ork

-lif

e

confl

ict

amongst

acad

emic

s?

73

Figure 2.9 above shows the variables and the relationships that will be researched. It

will be tested whether individual, work-unit and organisation wide spirituality at work

moderate (buffer) the influence of job stress (job threat and pressure stress) on well-

being and ill-being. It is reasonable to assume that the harmful effect of job stress on

well-being will be diminished by spirituality at work (via spiritual appraisal, beliefs,

self-reflection or interconnectedness), and that the detrimental influence of job stress on

ill-being will be minimised by spirituality at work. According to Gall et al.’s (2005)

model of spirituality appraisal one could argue that a person experiencing high levels of

spirituality at work may perceive lower levels of job stress than those who experience

low levels of spirituality at work. Low levels of job stress in turn may lead to lower

levels of ill-being and higher levels of well-being.

For example, if employees perceive stressful work events as creating meaning, or

having some purpose, they may not perceive the stressor as being very harmful. Having

a connection to work colleagues might provide employees with the view that they have

the support or shared resources (Ballantyne et al. 1999) to cope with stressors, therefore

rendering the stressor as less threatening. Having a connection with the wider

organisation which, as a whole, has similar values and beliefs to the employees, may

also help employees perceive work stressors as less stressful. The model postulates that

where stress is perceived as low, the resulting well-being will be high and ill-being will

be low.

It will also be investigated whether the three types of spirituality at work moderate, or

buffer, the influence of job stress on work-life balance and work-life conflict. Previous

research has linked spirituality at work and work-life balance (see Astin & Astin 1999;

Laabs 1995; Mitroff & Denton 1999b), and spirituality has been evidenced to reduce

stress (see Calicchia & Graham 2006; Edmondson et al. 2005; Lustyk et al. 2006).

Stress has also been linked to work-life balance and work-life conflict (see Burke et al.

2003; Tytherleigh et al. 2005; Wallace 2005; Waltman & Sullivan 2007; Wong & Lin

2007). This detrimental influence of job stress on work-life issues is likely to occur

through negative spillover (Balmforth & Gardner 2006; Hill et al. 2001). It is therefore

logical to assume that the harmful effect of job stress on work-life balance will be

decreased by spirituality at work, and that the detrimental influence of job stress on

work-life conflict will be reduced by spirituality at work. This positive influence of

74

spirituality at work on work-life issues (via job stress interaction) is hypothesised to

occur through positive spillover. One could question whether a person experiencing

high levels of spirituality at work may perceive lower levels of job stress than those who

experience low levels of spirituality at work. Low levels of job stress in turn may lead

to lower levels of work-life conflict and higher levels of work-life balance, than those

experiencing high levels of job stress. The implications of these findings, in terms of

HRM will be discussed in this research. The next chapter will outline the aims,

objectives and hypotheses of the current study.

75

CHAPTER 3

AIMS AND HYPOTHESES

3.1 Aims and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to address the rareness of research in the area of non-

religious spirituality at work amongst Australian university academics. As evidenced

from the literature review, there is a trend in management to incorporate spirituality into

the workplace. Many studies indicated beneficial links between individual spirituality,

stress and well-being, supporting Gall et al.’s (2005) spiritual appraisal model. Yet, not

much research has previously investigated empirically spirituality at work and its links

with HRM issues, particularly work-life issues. Of this research, little utilised work-

context spirituality measures specifically. Previous literature argued that HRM

programs fostering beneficial employee outcomes were applicable to universities as

well as other businesses. Despite this, spirituality in universities was a neglected area of

study. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate empirically spirituality at

work in an Australian academic sample.

The overall purpose of the current study was to investigate empirically individual,

work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work’s relationship with work-life

balance, work-life conflict, job threat stress, job pressures stress, well-being and ill-

being among Australian academic teaching staff. Specifically, this research aimed to

test moderation models based on Gall et al.’s (2005) spiritual appraisal model. These

separate moderation models involved individual, work-unit and organisation-wide

spirituality at work, job threat stress, job pressure stress, ill-being and well-being. The

present study also aimed to test moderation models involving work-life balance and

work-life conflict. Hypotheses and research questions were formulated based on

previous research (outlined in Chapter 2) in order to meet the study’s aims and

objectives. The following section will outline the current study’s aims and hypotheses

in more detail.

76

3.2 Hypotheses

Previous studies have found that generally, individual spirituality moderated the

relationship between stress and well-being or ill-being (e.g., Elam 2000; Hong 2008;

Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002). Based on spiritual appraisal theories of stress and health

(Ellison 1991; Gall et al. 2005; Hebert et al. 2006) and those previous moderation

analyses investigating individual spirituality and life stress, it was expected that;

1a) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the

effect of job stress on well-being such that:

i) individual spirituality at work buffers (reduces) the effect of job threat and

pressure stress on well-being

ii) work unit spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and


iii) organisation-wide spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat

and pressure stress on well-being

b) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the

impact of job stress on ill-being such that:

i) individual spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and pressure

stress on ill-being

ii) work unit spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and pressure

stress on ill-being

iii) organisation-wide spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and

pressure stress on ill-being

Little empirical research has been conducted on the area of spirituality at work and

work-life balance. Laabs (1995), Sullivan and Mainiero (2008) and Mitroff and Denton

(1999b) suggested that spirituality in the workplace involved allowing employees to

incorporate their spirituality or personal lives into the workplace, and finding the

balance between carrying out work duties and being true to oneself. It is therefore

reasonable to argue that work-life balance and spirituality at work are related constructs.

Previous research has shown relationships between both work-life balance and work-life

77

conflict and job stress (see Greenhaus & Beutell 1985; Kinman & Jones 2008;

Tytherleigh et al. 2005; Wallace 2005; Waltman & Sullivan 2007; Wong & Lin 2007),

as well as spirituality and stress (see Ardelt 2003; Lustyk et al. 2006). It is therefore

reasonable to hypothesise that:

2a) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the

effect of job stress on work-life balance such that:


stress on work-life balance




pressure stress on work-life balance

b) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the

influence of job stress on work-life conflict such that:


stress on work-life conflict




pressure stress on work-life conflict.

These relationships are thought to occur by means of positive spillover (Balmforth &

Gardner 2006; Hanson et al. 2006). The methods used to investigate these hypotheses

will be described in the following chapter.

78

CHAPTER 4

METHOD

4.0 Overview of Method

Academics employed in universities Australia wide (from higher education and TAFE

divisions) voluntarily completed a self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire

consisted of a demographic section and questions inquiring about participants’

spirituality at work, well-being, ill-being, job stress, work-life balance and work-life

conflict. A quantitative and empirical research design was used in this study to

overcome limitations of previous studies of spirituality that utilised a qualitative design

and smaller sample size. Instead of generalising a definition of individual spirituality to

the workplace (Sass 2000), a spirituality at work-specific measure was used, based on a

previously tested model of spirituality at work (see Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Milliman

et al. 2003). Additionally, rather than discussing what spirituality at work is, spirituality

at work’s influence on other organisational factors was investigated empirically.

As spirituality is a highly personal topic (Laabs 1995; Weston 2002), self-report

measures seemed most appropriate. For the purpose of consistency and reliability, all

measures were self-report, previously tested quantitative scales. Academic teaching

staff were sampled because earlier spirituality at work research had not investigated this

particular occupation (e.g., Duchon & Plowman 2005; Milliman et al. 2003). Little

research has been conducted on academic teaching staff, compared to university

students and school teachers (e.g., Goddard et al. 2006; Kokkinos 2007; Schwarzer &

Hallum 2008). The successive sections outline in more detail the participants, measures

and procedure used in this research.

4.1 Participants

One hundred and thirty-nine academic staff members employed in universities Australia

wide (from higher education and TAFE divisions) voluntarily completed a self-report

questionnaire. No incentive was provided to complete the questionnaire. Most of the

79

139 participants were employed in urban (82.0%) and non-private universities (87.8%)

while 18.0 percent were employed at non-urban universities and 10.1 percent were

employed by private universities. Eighty participants were female, 58 were male and 1

participant did not specify gender.

The bulk of participants’ highest academic teaching was at the lecturer level (42.4%),

while 22.3 percent were employed at the tutor level, 16.5 percent at the senior lecturer

level, 3.6 percent associate professor level, 2.9 percent professor level, 0.7 percent

academic head level and 7.2 percent indicated ‘other’ level. Academic duties most

often carried out by participants were teaching and research (55.4%), while 23 percent

taught only, 15.1 percent were engaged in research only, 2.9 percent conducted

administrative duties, and 3.6 percent indicated ‘other’ duties.

The majority of participants came from the Social Sciences discipline (21.6%), while

16.5 percent were from Business, 7.2 percent were from Engineering and Industrial

Sciences, 6.5 percent from Education, 5.8 percent Information and Communication

Technologies. Five percent were from the Health discipline, 4.3 percent Science, 3.6

percent Design, 2.9 percent Language and Academic Skills, 2.2 percent Writing, 1.4

percent Information Technology Services Management, 1.4 percent Law, 1.4 percent

Christian Studies, 1.4 percent Social Work and 1.4 percent Arts, Hospitality and

Sciences oriented faculties. Less than 1 percent of participants came from Arts, Child

and Family Studies, Information Resources, Institute for Research, International Centre,

Language, National Institute of Circus Arts, Regional Development and Sustainability

oriented faculties. The following section will outline the measures completed by

respondents.

4.2 Measures

The self-report questionnaire contained: a demographic section, a three level spirituality

at work scale, a work-life balance scale, a work-life conflict scale, a job in general stress

scale and a health scale (please refer to Appendix A). Table 4.2 below summarises the

variables studied in the current study.

80

Table 4.2

Study Variable Names and Classifications

Variable Name Type of Variable

Spirituality at Work

Individual spirituality at work

Work-unit spirituality at work

Organisation-wide spirituality at work

Job Stress

Job threat stress

Job pressure stress

Well-Being

Ill-Being

Work-Life Balance

Work-Life Conflict

Moderator Variables

Independent Variables

Dependent Variable

Dependent Variable

Dependent Variable

Dependent Variable

As can be seen from Table 4.2 above there were three separate moderator variables, two

independent variables and four dependant variables. In order to quantitatively and

statistically analyse moderator models, quantitative scales were chosen. The scales used

to measure the study variables will be described in detail in the following sections.

81

4.2.1 Spirituality at Work (Moderator Variable)

From their ‘Finding Meaning and Purpose at Work survey’, six of Ashmos and

Duchon’s (2000) meaningful work items were used to measure spirituality at work at

the individual level. Milliman et al.’s (2003) selection of Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000)

meaningful work items were used to measure the individual level of spirituality at work

of Australian university academics. Participants indicated on a six item rating scale

ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly disagree) the extent to which

they agreed with certain statements, for example “I experience joy in work” (Ashmos &

Duchon 2000, p. 143). Total mean individual level spirituality at work scores were

calculated, creating a possible range of total scores ranging from one to seven.

Participants obtaining a high score on this measure could be described as having a deep

sense of meaning and purpose in their work, while those participants obtaining a low

score would be described as having little sense of meaning and purpose in their work.

Milliman et al. (2003) confirmed that when the six meaningful work items were used to

assess workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes, they demonstrated good

internal consistency (Cronbach alpha =.88).

Milliman et al.’s (2003) own sense of community items were used to measure the work

unit level of spirituality at work of Australian university academics. Participants

indicated on a seven item rating scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven

(strongly disagree) the extent to which they agreed with certain statements, for example

“Working cooperatively with others is valued” (Milliman et al. 2003, p. 437). Total

mean work unit level spirituality at work scores were calculated, creating a theoretical

range of total scores ranging between one and seven. Participants obtaining a high

score on this variable could be described as having a deep connection to, or relationship

with co-workers, while those participants obtaining a low score would be described as

gaining less of a connection to, or relationship with co-workers. Milliman et al. (2003)

established that when the work unit subscale was used to assess workplace spirituality

and employee work attitudes, the items demonstrated good internal consistency

(Cronbach alpha =.91).

82

Eight of Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) alignment with organisational values items were

used to measure spirituality at work at the organisation-wide level. Milliman et al.’s

(2003) selection of Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) alignment with organisational values

items were used to measure the organisation-wide level of spirituality at work of

Australian university academics. Participants indicated on an eight item rating scale

ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly disagree) the extent to which

they agreed with certain statements, for example, “I feel positive about the values of the

organisation” (Ashmos & Duchon 2000, p. 144). Total mean organisation-wide level

spirituality at work scores were calculated, creating a possible range of total scores

ranging from one to seven.

Participants obtaining a high score on this measure could be described as experiencing a

strong sense of alignment between their personal values and their organisation’s mission

and purpose. Those obtaining a low score would be described as experiencing a low

sense of alignment between their personal values and their organisation’s mission and

purpose. Milliman et al. (2003) verified that when the organisation-wide spirituality at

work subscale was used to assess workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes,

the items demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.94). A

confirmatory factor analysis on each of the subscales displayed a good model fit

(Milliman et al. 2003). The following section will outline the job stress measure used in

this study.

4.2.2 Job Stress (Independent Variable)

Stanton et al.’s (2001) fifteen item Stress in General Scale was used to measure the

degree to which a job was perceived as taxing, exceeding resources and/or endangering

well-being (Stanton et al. 2001). Participants indicated on a three-point rating scale (0 =

No, 1.5 = Not sure, 3 = Yes) whether certain words and phrases, for example

“demanding”, described their job (Stanton et al. 2001, p. 873). The measure consists of

two subscales, threat and pressure. The threat subscale consisted of eight items, three of

which were reversed scored (irritating, under control, nerve-wracking, hassled,

comfortable, more stressful than I’d like, smooth running and overwhelming). The

pressure subscale consisted of seven items, two of which were reversed scored

83

(demanding, pressured, hectic, calm, relaxed, many things stressful and pushed).

Possible mean total scores could range from zero to three on both job pressure stress

and job threat stress subscale scales.

A high pressure score represented high levels of pressure-related stress perceived by the

participant, and low pressure score represented a low level of pressure-related stress was

perceived. A high threat score represented a high level of threat-related stress perceived

by the participant, and a low pressure score represented a low level of pressure-related

stress was perceived. In a scale development and validation study, Stanton et al. (2001)

confirmed that both subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (job threat stress

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82, job pressure stress Cronbach’s Alpha .88). Stanton et al.

(2001) conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, supporting a two-factor

solution for job stress. The following section will outline the well-being and ill-being

measures implemented in this study.

4.2.3 Well-Being and Ill-Being (Dependent Variables)

Hardie et al.’s (2005) Multidimensional Health States Scale – Short Form (MHSS-SF)

assessed the extent to which an individual has experienced a range of physical and

mental states related to well-being (WB) and ill-being (IB) in the past month. The 35-

item scale was originally rated on a five-point scale ranging from zero (not experienced)

to four (strongly experienced). The scale included five WB subscales: social WB

(friendly, sociable, cheerful, enthusiastic), somatic WB (physically fit, active, strong,

agile), emotional WB (calm, relaxed, content, satisfied), cognitive WB (competent,

confident, capable, alert, efficient) and sexual WB (sensual, attractive, affectionate).

The scale also included three IB subscales: depression (miserable, gloomy, sad,

depressed, trouble sleeping), anxiety (tense, nervous, worried, uptight, indecisive) and

somatic symptoms (backache, muscle pain, headache, indigestion, abdominal pain).

The MHSS-SF showed good construct validity (Hardie et al. 2005) and factor structure

(Morris 2008).

In the current study a six-point rating scale ranging from zero (not experienced) to five

(strongly experienced) for the MHSS-SF (Hardie et al. 2005) was used. Some

84

researchers argue that forced-choice rating scales (those with an even number of points)

give better validity than formats which offer a middle ‘neutral’ response (Kaplan &

Saccuzzo 2005). DeVellis (2003) recommended using forced-choice formats when

participants may be inclined to give a neutral response in order to avoid making a

choice. As the researchers wanted to use a forced-choice format for this measure to

indicate definite well-being or ill-being states, and, because Murphy and Davidshofer

(2001) recommend using between five and nine points on a rating scale, a six-point

format was used for the MHSS-SF (Hardie et al. 2005) in this study.

Total mean scores were calculated for each subscale: emotional WB, social WB,

physical WB, cognitive WB, sexual WB, depression, anxiety and physical IB. Total

mean scores were also calculated for overall WB and overall IB. Possible total mean

scores for total IB and total WB (and their subscale total scores) ranged from zero to

five, with high scores reflecting higher frequencies of WB or IB experienced in the past

month. Hardie et al. (2005) demonstrated that when the WB and IB measures were

used to investigate the influence of relational, individual and collective self-aspects on

stress, uplifts and health, the total WB and IB measures reported good internal

consistency (Cronbach alpha for WB = 0.92 and IB = .90). The following section will

outline the work-life balance measure utilised in this study.

4.2.4 Work-Life Balance (Dependent Variable)

Hill et al.’s (2001) five item Work-Family Balance scale was used to measure the

degree to which an individual was able to balance simultaneously the emotional,

behavioural and time demands of both paid work and family or personal duties. The

original rating scale varied, sometimes using a scale ranging from one (strongly agree)

to five (strongly disagree), from one (very easy) to five (very difficult), from one (never)

to five (almost always), and from one (extremely successful) to five (extremely

unsuccessful). For the purpose of the current study, the term ‘work-life balance’ was

used to encompass personal as well as family responsibilities (Parkes & Langford 2008;

Sullivan & Mainiero 2008).

85

In line with Murphy and Davidshofer’s (2001) recommendation to use between five and

nine points on a rating scale, Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2005) argued that the optimal

number of responses for a rating scale was seven. Therefore, a seven-point rating

format was used for Hill et al.’s (2001) work-family balance measure in this study.

Participants were asked to indicate on a five item rating scale ranging from one

(strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with

certain statements, for example “It is easy for me to balance the demands of my work

and my personal life” (Hill et al. 2001, p. 52). One item was reverse scored.

Minor changes in wording were made to suit the new scaling system, and also to suit the

aims of the study, for example, ‘personal life was used instead of ‘family life’ to

encompass all aspects of personal life outside work. A total average work-life balance

score was calculated, creating a possible total score ranging from one to seven. High

scores represented a good ability to balance work and personal life demands, while low

scores represented a poor ability to balance work and personal life demands. Hill et al.

(2001) established that when the scale was used to assess the influence of job flexibility

on work and family life balance, the items demonstrated good internal consistency

(Cronbach alpha = .83). The following section will describe the work-life conflict

measure used in this study.

4.2.5 Work-Life Conflict (Dependent Variable)

A slight variation of O’Neil et al.’s (1986) six item work-life conflict subscale (taken

from the full GRCS-1) was used to measure participants’ work-life conflict.

Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with certain

statements on a rating scale ranging from one (totally disagree) to seven (totally agree),

for example “I feel torn between my hectic work schedule and caring for my family and

friends” (O'Neil et al. 1986, p. 344). Possible total average scores ranged from one to

seven where a high score represented high levels of work-life conflict. A low score

represented low levels of work-life conflict.

O’Neil et al. (1986) reported that when the scale was used to assess gender role conflict

with a six-point rating scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to six (strongly agree)

86

it demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .75). Factor analyses also

supported the factor structure of the measure (O'Neil et al. 1986). In an Australian

study by Riddle (2001), a four-point rating scale version (different wording of the

response categories) of O’Neil’s measure (one = totally disagree and four = totally

agree) was used yielding higher reliability (Cronbach alpha = .89). Therefore, a seven-

point rating scale (optimum number recommended by Kaplan & Saccuzzo 2005)

ranging from one (totally disagree) to seven (totally agree) was used in this study.

4.3 Procedure

Before the data collection phase commenced, an Ethics application was submitted to the

Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) seeking

permission to conduct the research. Ethics approval was sought and obtained to use this

line of recruitment (see Appendix B). A university approved email broadcast was sent

out to all teaching staff at both higher education and TAFE sectors of an Australian

university requesting voluntary and anonymous participation for the current study.

Participation involved completing a questionnaire either online or in hard copy format,

with no reward offered. A web address link was provided in the email, which directed

participants to an online version of the questionnaire. A paper and pen version of the

questionnaire was offered to participants on request if they preferred to complete a hard

copy version instead.

Participants were also requested to forward the web address and research details to

teaching staff in other universities Australia-wide. A short advertisement (to participate

in this study) was also placed in an Australian University academics magazine (Campus

Review). Either hard copy or online versions of the questionnaire took approximately

20 to 30 minutes for participants to complete. Over a period of approximately four

months the online survey was opened 222 times, but only 145 answered some, or all of

the questionnaire. Preliminary quantitative data analyses were performed to screen the

data and to test if the main study variables were viable to include in the main

moderation analyses. Hierarchical regressions were then performed in order to

investigate whether spirituality at work buffered the influence of job stress on well-

being and ill-being; and work-life balance and work-life conflict. In order to analyse

87

the quantitative study variables, data screening, preliminary analyses, reliability

analyses and moderation models were required. The successive chapter outlines these

analyses in more detail and presents results of this study.

88

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

5.0 Overview of Analyses

The relationships between individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at

work and employee outcomes were investigated among Australian university

academics. Employee outcome variables studied were work-life balance, work-life

conflict, job threat stress, job pressure stress, ill-being and well-being. Statistical

analyses were performed in accordance with the study aims and hypotheses.

Preliminary data analyses were conducted to screen the data and to test the assumptions

underlying multiple regression.

The Spirituality at Work Scale (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Milliman et al. 2003), Work-

Life Conflict Scale (O'Neil et al. 1986), Multidimensional Health States Scale (Hardie

et al. 2005) and the Stress in General Scale (Stanton et al. 2001) showed previous

validity and reliability in psychometric testing studies. However, the work-life balance

measure had not previously undergone psychometric testing. Therefore, an exploratory

factor analysis was conducted for the work-life balance measure to test its factor

structure. Reliability analyses were performed on all scales. Bivariate correlations and

hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to investigate the various relationships

between the study variables and to test moderation models.

5.1 Preliminary Data Screening and Assumption Testing

The data were analysed using SPSS version 16. The data were screened to ensure there

were no out-of-range values for each variable and that missing values were

appropriately coded. Consequently, two outliers (cases) were deleted as they lay

outside the intended range of values on one or more variables. Four cases were deleted

as they contained non-random missing responses (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007), where,

for example, participants had failed to respond to all or most of the items belonging to at

89

least one scale. Therefore, 139 of the total sample of 145 cases were retained for further

analysis. The remaining missing values (missing at random) were imputed for the

metric variables using an Expectation Maximisation (EM) SPSS missing values analysis

(Little's MCAR test χ2 (2089) = 1624.71, p = 1.00).

Univariate and multivariate outliers were investigated by examining scatterplots,

histograms, boxplots, standardised residual values (within +/-3.29) and Mahalanobis

distance scores (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007). Two extreme cases were detected and

deleted. Boxplots indicated non-extreme outliers on the total ill-being and total

individual spirituality at work variables. However, the five percent trimmed mean

statistic did not differ substantially from the mean for any of the variables, indicating no

problematic outlier influences. Hence, these cases remained in the data set. None of the

remaining cases had a Mahalanobis distance (distributed as χ2 with df equal to the

number of predictors) that exceeded the critical value χ2(5) = 20.51 at the p < 0.001

significance level. This suggested no remaining extreme outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell

2007). Standardised residual scatterplots also showed residuals within the +/- 3.29

value range (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007).

The sample size (N = 139) was adequate to find significant (p < 0.05) medium sized

relationships between the variables. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommended a

sample size of 104 + m, (where m is the number of independent variables) to test the

contribution of individual predictors in multiple regression. According to this rule, the

number of predictors included in the multiple regression analyses in the current research

was sufficient to preserve the statistical integrity of the results. There was no evidence

of singularity and little evidence of multicollinearity (highly correlated independent

variables). Tolerance values almost reached zero, but the highest correlation among the

independent variables was r = -0.40 (see Table 5.3 below). Variables used in the

multiple regression analyses were centered in order to minimise multicollinearity

problems (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007). Table 5.1 below provides the descriptive

statistics for the main study variables prior to centering.

90

Table 5.1

Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Data Screening.

Variables Mean SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis KMO Skewness

Z value

Kurtosis

Z value

Ind SWS 5.44 1.18 1.50 7.00 -1.09 1.41 .12 -5.29 3.46

Wrk SWS 4.70 1.25 1.43 7.00 -.42 -.24 .09 -2.04 -.59

Org SWS 3.54 1.36 1.00 6.50 -.17 -.79 .08 -.83 -1.94

WB 3.25 .88 .70 5.00 -.12 -.38 .05 -.58 -.93

IB 1.99 1.13 .00 5.00 .32 -.46 .06 1.55 -1.13

Threat 1.17 .83 .00 3.00 .34 -.97 .10 1.65 -2.38

Pressure 2.07 .90 .00 3.00 -.77 -.62 .15 -3.74 -1.52

WLB 4.34 1.45 1.20 7.00 -.08 -.98 .09 -.39 -2.40

WLC 3.98 1.69 1.00 7.00 -.02 -1.06 .08 -.10 -2.60

N = 139. Note: Ind SWS = Individual level spirituality at work, Wrk SWS = work unit level spirituality at work,

Org SWS = Organisation-wide level spirituality at work, WB = Well-being, IB = Ill-being, Threat = Job Threat

Stress, Pressure = Job Pressure Stress, WLB = Work-life Balance, WLC = Work-life Conflict, KMO = Kolmogorov-

Smirnov statistic, Skewness standard error = .206, Kurtosis standard error = .408.

The well-being and ill-being variables demonstrated a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KMO)

significance level greater than 0.05 (p = .200), indicating normal distribution (Coakes

2005). The KMO statistic for the remaining study variables was not significant,

suggesting that the normality assumption was violated. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007)

suggested calculating the skewness and kurtosis significance statistic to test for

violations of normality. The skewness z value was calculated by dividing the skewness

statistic by its standard error. The kurtosis z value was computed by dividing the

kurtosis statistic by its standard error.

Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2005) suggested that skewness and kurtosis

z values within the +/- 2.58 range, represent reasonably normal distributions. As can be

seen from Table 5.1 above, most skewness and kurtosis z values were within the +/-

2.58 (p < 0.01) range of zero. The job pressure stress, work-life conflict and individual

spirituality at work variables skewness and/or kurtosis z values exceeded the +/- 2.58 (p

< 0.01) critical z value. Histograms and boxplots revealed reasonably normal

distributions for the other variables and reflected the skewness and kurtosis of the job

pressure stress, work-life conflict and individual spirituality at work variables.

91

In spite of this, the normal probability plots displayed points that lay in a reasonably

straight diagonal line from bottom left to top right for all the variables, suggesting no

major deviations from normality. Residual scatterplots revealed roughly rectangular

dispersions centred around zero with a lower and upper band of around +/-3.00 and no

systematic pattern to the residuals, indicating normal distribution (Pallant 2001). This

suggests that the statistical assumption of normality was adequately met. All variables

demonstrated a varied range of response scores.

The slight violations of normality observed for some variables were not enough to

warrant statistically transforming the data. Transformation is only recommended when

skewness and kurtosis are extreme (Coakes 2005). Furthermore, populations are quite

often skewed because of the nature of the construct being measured (Pallant 2001).

Moreover, Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) argue that transformation can make

interpretation of previously used scales difficult. Therefore, the original metric of each

scale was maintained by not statistically transforming the data.

The residual scatterplots and bivariate scatterplots also displayed random rectangular

dispersion, suggesting the linearity assumption of multiple regression was met

(Tabachnick & Fidell 2007). The band enclosing the residuals was relatively equal in

width at each value of the predicted score, suggesting that the homoscedasticity

assumption was met (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007). These preliminary findings indicated

that the statistical assumptions relevant to multiple regression were met, therefore the

data was deemed appropriate for further investigation.

As can be seen from Table 5.1 in comparison to the range of possible scores for each

scale, on average, academics experienced relatively moderate levels of job threat stress

and high levels of job pressure stress. On average, academics experienced relatively

high levels of individual spirituality at work, medium to high levels of work-unit

spirituality at work, and medium levels of organisation-wide spirituality at work. On

average, academics experienced medium to high levels of work-life balance and

medium levels of work-life conflict.

92

5.2 Work-life Balance Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the Work-life balance measure to

examine its factor structure with a sample of Australian academics. Due to the existing

model of work-life balance, a maximum likelihood extraction method was used. The

correlation matrix table confirmed all five item-intercorrelations at .30 or above.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was adequate at .81, which was

above the suggested level of 0.6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974). Bartlett’s (1954) test of sphericity

was significant (p < 0.001), which supported factorability of the correlation matrix. It

was therefore decided that the items were suitable for factor analysis.

The factor analysis established the presence of one factor with eigenvalues exceeding 1.

The one-factor solution explained 62.8 percent of the total variance. An inspection of

the scree plot revealed a clear break after the first component. The goodness of fit index

(χ2 (5) = 11.86, p < 0.05) indicated that there was a significant difference between the

model and the data. Though, the goodness of fit statistic is sensitive to sample size and

the χ2/df statistic is offered as a less sensitive alternative, where 1 to 2 is ideal (Francis

2002). In this case χ2/df = 2.4, suggesting a reasonable fit. The structure matrix is

shown in Table 5.2 below.

93

Table 5.2

Exploratory Factor Analysis Loadings for Work-life Balance Items

Item Factor

Item 4 I feel successful in balancing work/personal life .93

Item 1 Easy to balance demands of work/personal life .86

Item 2 Sufficient time away from work to maintain

balance

.83

Item 3 When taking a holiday, I can separate myself from

work

.53

Item 5 ® I feel drained when I go home from work .48

% variance explained

62.8%

N = 139. Note: Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Only loadings above 0.3 are shown.

These results were consistent with the Hill et al. (2001) model of work-life balance and

gave support to the factor structure of the measure in an Australian sample of

academics.

5.3 Reliability and Bivariate Correlation Analyses

Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were calculated for each of the scales to determine the

reliability of the measures. Bivariate correlations were conducted to determine whether

the three spirituality at work subscales (individual, work-unit and organisation-wide

levels) were significantly related to work-life balance, work-life conflict, job threat

stress, job pressure stress, well-being and ill-being. Only independent variables that

correlated with dependent variables were included in subsequent multiple regression

analyses. There was no evidence of multicollinearity, the scales demonstrated good

reliability (>.70), and all of the correlations were statistically significant. Table 5.3

below shows the reliability coefficient for each scale and the Pearson R correlation

coefficients between the measures.

94

Tab

le 5

.3

Rel

iabil

ity

Coef

fici

ents

and B

ivari

ate

Corr

elati

ons

am

ong S

tudy

Vari

able

s

In

d S

WS

Wrk

SW

S

Org

SW

S

WB

IB

T

hre

at

Pre

ssure

W

LB

W

LC

Ind S

WS

[.90]

Wrk

SW

S

.3

9***

[.90]

Org

SW

S

.3

3***

.46***

[.94]

WB

.33***

.37***

.3

6***

[.93]

IB

-.

20*

-.2

1*

-.

21*

-.4

4***

[.93]

Thre

at

-.

37***

-.36***

-.4

0***

-.5

7***

.49***

[.85]

Pre

ssure

-.

32***

-.33***

-.28**

-.4

5***

.37***

.6

5***

[.88]

WL

B

.3

0***

.38***

.27**

.64***

-.43***

-.70***

-.64***

[.84]

WL

C

-.3

2***

-.37***

-.26**

-.61***

.55***

.74***

.66***

-.85***

[.93]

N =

13

9.

No

te:

Cro

nb

ach’s

alp

ha

reli

abil

itie

s ar

e sh

ow

n o

n t

he

dia

go

nal

in b

old

. I

nd

SW

S =

Ind

ivid

ual

lev

el s

pir

itual

ity a

t w

ork

,

Wrk

SW

S =

wo

rk u

nit

lev

el s

pir

itual

ity a

t w

ork

, O

rg S

WS

= O

rgan

isat

ion-w

ide

level

sp

irit

ual

ity a

t w

ork

, W

B =

Wel

l-b

eing,

IB =

Ill

-bei

ng,

Thre

at =

Jo

b T

hre

at S

tres

s, P

ress

ure

= J

ob

Pre

ssure

Str

ess,

WL

B =

Wo

rk-l

ife

Bal

ance

, W

LC

= W

ork

-lif

e C

onfl

ict.

*** p

<0

.00

1,

**p

<0

.01

, *p

<0

.05

.

95

As shown in Table 5.3, the spirituality at work subscales (individual, work unit and

organisation-wide) were moderately and positively correlated with each other. All three

spirituality at work subscales were positively and weak-to-moderately correlated with

well-being and work-life balance, and negatively and weak-to-moderately correlated

with ill-being, work-life conflict, job threat stress and job pressure stress. In terms of

employee outcomes, individual and organisation-wide spirituality at work were most

strongly correlated with job threat stress, while work-unit spirituality at work was most

strongly related to work-life balance. Job threat stress and job pressure stress were

negatively and moderate-to-strongly correlated with well-being, and positively and

moderately related to ill-being. The strongest correlations in Table 5.3 involved job

threat stress, job pressure stress, work-life balance and work-life conflict. Job threat

stress and job pressure stress were strongly and negatively related to work-life balance.

Job threat stress and job pressure stress were also strongly and positively related to

work-life conflict.

The relationships between well-being and both work-life balance and work-life conflict

are noteworthy. It is apparent from Table 5.3 that work-life balance was moderate-to-

strongly and positively correlated with well-being, while work-life conflict was

moderate-to-strongly (but negatively) related to well-being. Ill-being was moderately,

negatively correlated with work-life balance and moderately, positively correlated with

work-life conflict. All of these variables were retained for subsequent regression

analyses as they significantly correlated with each other.

The demographic variables collected were age, gender, marital status, number of

children, country of birth, highest academic teaching level, academic duties, number of

years employed in an academic position, discipline or faculty, number of work contact

hours per week and type of university employed at (urban vs non-urban and private vs

non-private). The age of the participants ranged from 25 to 66 years (M = 43.66, SD =

11.06). The number of years participants were employed in an academic position

ranged from 0.25 to 40 years (M = 7.88, SD = 7.41). The number of participants’ work

contact hours per week ranged up to 70 hours (M = 25.10, SD = 16.54), with the most

frequently recurring response (Mode) being 40 hours per week. Marital status of

participants varied with 49.6 percent married, 20.9 percent de facto, 20.1 percent single,

0.7 percent widowed and 8.6 percent separated. The number of participants with

96

children also varied, with 41.7 percent having no children, 17.3 percent having one

child, 24.5 percent having two children and 15.8 percent having three or more children.

Most participants were Australian born (70.5%) while 4.3 percent were born in the

United Kingdom, 3.6 percent in The Netherlands, 2.9 percent were born in New

Zealand, 2.2 percent were born in United States of America, 2.2 percent were born in

Norway and 2.2 percent were born in Germany. Various other countries of birth

represented with small percentages in the sample included Canada, Fiji, India, Italy,

Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Scotland, Wales, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tibet and the Republic

of Uzbekistan.

Participants were mostly lecturers (42.4%), followed by tutors (22.3%), then senior

lecturers (16.5%), with much fewer associate professors (3.6%), professors (2.9%) and

academic heads (0.7%). Quite a few participants reported reaching an “other” highest

academic position (7.2%). More participants engaged in teaching and research (55.4%)

than teaching only (23%) or research only (15.1%) and administrative duties (2.9%). A

few participants reported performing “other” academic duties (3.6%).

The bivariate relationships of the continuous demographic variables (age, number of

years employed in an academic position and number of contact hours per week), and the

dependent variables were examined to determine whether to control for demographics

in subsequent analyses or not. The only significant correlation was between age and ill-

being (r = -.21, p <0.05).

The sample size of this study meant that statistical power was not sufficient to test

group differences for all categorical demographic variables (Cohen 1988). For

example, there were only 25 responses from non-urban universities and 114 from urban

universities, therefore statistical integrity of these results would be questionable (see

Appendix C for detailed participant information). Therefore, only one t-test was

conducted, which examined the relationship between the categorical demographic

variable of gender and the dependent variables. There were no differences in the study

variables for gender. Consequently, multiple regression analyses were performed on the

sample as a whole.

97

5.4 Main Analyses: Moderator Models

Frazier et al. (2004) argue that a moderator effect is an interaction whereby the effect of

one variable depends on the level of another. Baron and Kenny (1986) argue that

moderation results when the relationship between two variables changes as a function of

the moderation variable. The moderator hypothesis is supported if the interaction

between the independent variable and moderator significantly influences the dependent

variable (Baron & Kenny 1986). Buffering moderation occurs when the moderator

variable weakens the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable

(Frazier et al. 2004).

Independent Dependent

Variable Variable

Moderator Variable

Figure 5.4 Moderator Model

(Source: Frazier et al. 2004, p. 116)

To test for moderator effects, Frazier et al. (2004) firstly recommend centering the

independent and moderator variables (e.g., subtracting the sample mean from each

individual score). Secondly, product terms are calculated which represent the

interaction between the independent variable and the moderator variable (Frazier et al.

2004). Thus, product terms are computed by multiplying the newly centered

independent and moderator variables together. Moderation models are tested using

hierarchical regression analysis: the centered variables are entered in block one, and

product terms in block two (Frazier et al. 2004).

Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to test moderation models involving

interactions between the three spirituality at work variables and the two job stress

variables in the prediction of (a) well-being and ill-being (research question 1) and (b)

work-life balance and work-life conflict (research question 2). Four separate

hierarchical regression analyses were conducted in order to examine moderator effects

98

for the four dependent variables separately, that is, well-being and ill-being, work-life

balance and work-life conflict.

Although the general structure of the regression equation was the same for all four

dependent variables, the independent variables entered at the first step varied. For the

dependent variable of ill-being, age was controlled for by entering it in the first step

before spirituality at work.

5.4.1 Moderator Models for Well-being and Ill-being

The first model to be tested was whether individual, work-unit, organisation-wide

spirituality at work moderated the effect of job threat and job pressure stress on well-

being. This model tested the following hypotheses:

1a) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the effect

of job stress on well-being such that:

i) individual spirituality at work buffers (reduces) the effect of job threat and


ii) work unit spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and


iii) organisation-wide spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat

and pressure stress on well-being

Centred individual, work-unit and organisation wide spirituality at work variables and

centred job threat and pressure stress variables were entered in block one, and the six

product terms (centred spirituality at work x centred job stress) were entered in block

two, with well-being entered as the dependent variable. The results of the hierarchical

regression analysis are shown below in Table 5.4.1.1.

R was significantly different from zero at the end of each step. After step two, with all

the independent variables in the regression equation, R = .64, F (11, 127) = 7.82, p

<0.001.

99

Table 5.4.1.1

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Job Stress, Spirituality at Work and

Well-being

Step Predictor R

2 Adjusted

R2

R2

Change

F df1, df2 p

1



Organisation-wide spirituality

at work

Job threat stress

Job pressure stress

.38 .35 .38 15.97 5, 133 <.001

2 Individuality spirituality at

work

x job threat stress

x job pressure stress


x job threat stress



at work

x job threat stress


.40 .35 .03 1.02 6, 127 .416

N = 139.

Hypothesis 1a) was unsupported. As shown in Table 5.4.1.1, adding the set of six

product terms failed to produce a significant increment in R2. In addition, no product

term reached significance at the .05 level, suggesting that there was no interaction

between spirituality at work and job stress in the prediction of well-being. Therefore,

spirituality at work did not moderate the influence of job stress on well-being. Though,

in block two, the main effect of job threat stress significantly predicted well-being (sri2

= .07, B = -.40, β = -.38, p < .001) over and above the other variables. The 95%

confidence interval for B was from -.61 to -.19 for job threat stress.

100

The second model to be tested was whether individual, work-unit and organisation-wide

spirituality at work moderated the effect of job threat and pressure stress on ill-being.

This model tested the following hypotheses:

1b) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the impact

of job stress on ill-being such that:

i) individual spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and pressure stress on

ill-being

ii) work unit spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and pressure stress on

ill-being iii) organisation-wide spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and

pressure stress on ill-being

At the bivariate level, age correlated significantly with ill-being, therefore its influence

on ill-being was controlled in the hierarchical analysis. Age was entered in block one;

centred individual, work-unit and organisation wide spirituality at work variables and

centred job threat and pressure stress variables were entered in block two; and the six

product terms (centred spirituality at work x centred job stress) were entered in block

three, with ill-being as the dependent variable. The results of the hierarchical regression

analysis are shown below in Table 5.4.1.2.

R was significantly different from zero at the end of each step. After step three, with all

the independent variables in the regression equation, R = .57, F (12, 126) = 5.11, p <

.001.

101

Table 5.4.1.2


Ill-being when Controlling for Age

Step Predictor R2 Adjusted

R2

R2

Change

F df1, df2 p

1 Age .05 .04 .05 6.49 1, 137 <.05

2




at work

Job threat stress

Job pressure stress

.31 .28 .27 9.98 5, 132 <.001


work

x job threat stress



x job threat stress



at work

x job threat stress


.33 .26 .02 .64 6, 126 .70

N = 139.

Hypothesis 1b) was unsupported. As shown in Table 5.4.1.2, the set of six product

terms failed to produce a significant increment in R2. In addition, no product term

reached significance at the 0.05 level, suggesting that there was no interaction between

spirituality at work and job stress in the prediction of ill-being. Therefore, spirituality at

work did not moderate the influence of job stress on ill-being. However, in block three,

the main effects of job threat stress (sri2

= .09, B = .61, β = .45, p < .001) and age (sri2

=

.06, B = -.03, β = -.26, p = .001) significantly predicted ill-being over and above that of

the other variables. Of the significant predictors, job threat stress explained more

variance in ill-being than did age. The 95% confidence interval for B was -.04 to -.01

for age, and from .32 to .89 for job threat stress.

102

5.4.2 Moderator Models for Work-life Balance and Work-life Conflict

The third model to be tested was whether individual, work-unit and organisation-wide

spirituality at work moderated the effect of job threat and pressure stress on work-life

balance. This model tested the following hypotheses:

2a) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the effect of job

stress on work-life balance such that:


work-life balance


work-life balance

iii) organisation-wide spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and pressure


The centred individual, work-unit and organisation wide spirituality at work variables

and the centred job threat and pressure stress variables, were entered in block one and

the six product terms (centred spirituality at work x centred job stress) were entered in

block two, with work-life balance as the dependent variable. The results of the

hierarchical regression analysis are shown below in Table 5.4.2.1.



0.001.

103

Table 5.4.2.1


Work-life Balance


R2

R2

Change

F df1, df2 p

1




at work

Job threat stress

Job pressure stress

.56 .55 .56 34.47 5, 133 <.001


work

x job threat stress



x job threat stress



at work

x job threat stress


.58 .54 .01 .63 6, 127 .71

N = 139.

Hypothesis 2a) was unsupported. As shown in Table 5.4.2.1, the set of six product



spirituality at work and job stress in the prediction of work-life balance. Therefore,

spirituality at work did not moderate the influence of job stress on work-life balance.

Yet, in block two, the main effects of job threat stress (sri2

= .11, B = -.86, β = -.49, p <

0.001) and job pressure stress (sri2

= .03, B = -.44, β = -.28, p < 0.01) significantly

predicted work-life balance over and above that of other variables. The main effect of

work-unit spirituality at work on work-life balance reached significance (sri2

= .01, B =

.17, β = .14, p = 0.05). Of the significant predictors, job threat stress explained more

variance in work-life balance than did job pressure stress and work-unit spirituality at

104

work. The 95% confidence interval for B was -.71 to -.17 for job pressure stress, -1.15

to -.57 for job threat stress and from .00 to .33 for work-unit spirituality at work.

The fourth model to be tested was whether individual, work-unit and organisation-wide

spirituality at work moderated the effect of job threat and pressure stress on work-life

conflict. This model tested the following hypotheses:

2b) Individual, work-unit and organisation-wide spirituality at work moderates the influence of

job stress on work-life conflict such that:


work-life conflict


work-life conflict

iii) organisation-wide spirituality at work buffers the effect of job threat and pressure


The centred individual, work-unit and organisation wide spirituality at work variables

and the centred job threat and pressure stress variables, were entered in block one, and

the six product terms (centred spirituality at work x centred job stress) were entered in

block two, with work-life balance as the dependent variable. The results of the

hierarchical regression analysis are shown below in Table 5.4.2.2.



0.001.

105

Table 5.4.2.2


Work-life Conflict


R2

R2

Change

F df1, df2 p

1




at work

Job threat stress

Job pressure stress

.62 .60 .62 43.10 5, 133 <.001


work

x job threat stress



x job threat stress



at work

x job threat stress


.62 .59 .01 .33 6, 127 .92

N = 139.

Hypothesis 2b) was unsupported. As shown in Table 5.4.2.2, the set of six product



spirituality at work and job stress in the prediction of work-life conflict. However, in

block two, the direct effects of job threat stress (sri2

= .13, B = 1.07, β = .53, p < 0.001)

and job pressure stress (sri2

= .04, B = .55, β = .29, p < 0.001) significantly predicted

work-life conflict. Of the significant predictors, job threat stress explained more

variance in work-life conflict than did job pressure stress. The 95% confidence interval

for B was .25 to .85 for job pressure stress, and from .75 to 1.39 for job threat stress.

106

For significant moderation effects, Frazier et al. (2004) suggested computing predicted

values of the dependent variable for high and low scores (one standard deviation above

the mean and one standard deviation below the mean) on the independent and

moderator variables. The predicted values are then plotted on a graph summarizing the

form of the moderator effect (Frazier et al. 2004). Since no interaction terms produced

significant changes in the dependent variables, graphs were not plotted. The results of

this study will now be discussed in more detail, in terms of support for hypotheses,

other findings, past research, implications, limitations and suggestions for further

research.

107

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

6.0 Overview of Discussion and Conclusion

Due to the increasing popularity of research on spirituality at work, this research aimed

to investigate positive and negative outcomes of spirituality at work amongst Australian

academics. Specifically, it was hypothesised that spirituality at work would have a

buffering effect on the detrimental influences of job stress on both well-being and ill-

being. It was also investigated whether spirituality at work moderated the influence of

job stress on work-life balance and work-life conflict. The discussion will firstly

address whether these hypotheses were supported by the results of this study. The

findings will be related to earlier research investigating direct effects of spirituality on

stress and well-being (e.g., Calicchia & Graham 2006; Lustyk et al. 2006; Powers et al.

2007) as well as studies investigating moderating influences of individual spirituality on

stress and health (e.g., Elam 2000; Hong 2008; Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002). In

particular it will be discussed whether the results of this study were consistent with

earlier research findings and theories. Theoretical implications of the findings and

implications for academic staff and HR managers will then be discussed, followed by

the limitations of the study. Based on these deliberations, suggestions for future

research will be provided and these will be followed by a conclusion.

6.1 Hypothesis (1): Moderator Models for Well-being and Ill-being

The results of the present study supported Laabs (1995, p. 64) argument that defining

spirituality was like “capturing an angel – it’s ethereal and beautiful, but perplex.” On

average, academics experienced relatively high levels of individual spirituality at work,

medium to high levels of work-unit spirituality at work and medium levels of

organisation-wide spirituality at work. However, contrary to expectations hypothesis

(1) was inconsistent with previous research findings. Results of the initial correlation

analyses suggested that academics with high levels of spirituality at work (individual,

108

work unit and organisation-wide) tended to experience fewer instances of ill-being,

more instances of well-being, less job threat stress and less job pressure stress. At a

bivariate level, spirituality at work was related to better well-being and lower ill-being

and lower job stress amongst academics. Academics with high levels of job threat

stress and less job pressure stress tended to experience more instances of ill-being and

fewer instances of well-being. At a bivariate level, older age was significantly related to

more frequent experiences of ill-being.

At a multivariate level, however, job threat stress significantly predicted decreased well-

being over and above job pressure stress, spirituality at work and the interaction

variables (see Table 5.4.1.1). Job threat stress and age significantly predicted increased

ill-being over and above job pressure stress, spirituality at work or the interaction

variables (see Table 5.4.1.2). Symptoms of ill-health tended to increase with age among

academics. However, job threat stress was more important in predicting ill-being than

was age, which implies that ill-being was more influenced in this sample by job threat

stress than age.

The fact that spirituality at work was related to both job stress and health at the bivariate

level, but not the multivariate level, could be attributed to the strong influence of job

stress on health. As reported earlier in Table 5.3, job stress variables in this study were

more strongly related to well-being and ill-being, than were the spirituality at work

variables. It seems that job threat stress and job pressure stress overrode any positive

influences that spirituality at work could have had on well-being or ill-being.

Job threat stress referred to anxiety or overwhelming feelings of job stress, while

pressure represented time and demand aspects of job stress (Stanton et al. 2001).

Feelings of anxiety and feeling internally threatened by work, seemed to be a stronger

influence on academics’ health than were time and pressure demands. It seems that

when academic teaching staff felt irritated, lacked control, nerve-wracked, hassled,

uncomfortable, or overwhelmed (due to their work), they were less likely to experience

states of social, somatic, emotional, cognitive and sexual well-being, and more likely to

experience symptoms of depression, anxiety and somatic ill-being. Achieving

meaningful work, a sense of community among colleagues and experiencing alignment

109

between their own values and the values of their organisation, did not foster academics’

well-being or reduce their ill-being.

In this particular sample of academics, job pressure stress was not predictive of well-

being or ill-being. These results may substantiate earlier views arguing that in

circumstances where stress is only temporary, or known to be short-term, well-being

and ill-being are less affected than in cases of ongoing or uncertain stressors (Schuler

1982). Furthermore, short-term stressors were argued to lead to negative emotional

reactions (e.g., anxiety) and minor physical symptoms (e.g., headaches or stomach

upsets), but long-term stressors were argued to lead to more severe negative emotional

problems (e.g., chronic anxiety) and serious physical health problems (e.g.,

cardiovascular disease and even premature death) (Schuler 1982; Spector 2002).

In this sample, on average, academics experienced higher levels of job pressure stress

than job threat stress (see Table 5.1). These levels of stress could be attributed to the

sample used in this particular study that consisted predominantly of academics

belonging to a single university that was undergoing restructuring and significant

change at the time of data collection. Therefore, with reference to earlier views on

stress and health (e.g., Schuler 1982; Spector 2002) it is plausible that temporary but

intense job pressure stressors in this sample (e.g., being forced to complete extra tasks

during restructures, or while team members were absent, undertaking short-term

projects or exam or assignment marking) were very common amongst academics during

the time when the data was collected for this study. It could be argued that job pressure

stress did not influence well-being or ill-being due to the presence of temporary job

pressure stressors (that were expected to be short-term) in this sample. In addition, it is

likely that job threat stressors (e.g., large amounts of work, juggling multiple tasks,

conflict with colleagues, teaching, research or professional development) were ongoing

rather than temporary, when the academics participated in the study. It could therefore

be argued that job threat stress influenced well-being or ill-being directly because of the

presence of ongoing job threat stressors in this sample.

The results of the moderation analyses could also be attributed to the sample used in the

current study. If job threat stress was ongoing, it is possible that academics felt that

spiritual appraisal of work stressors was ineffective in reducing job stress at the

110

individual level. Therefore, without utilising spiritual appraisal, academics’ ongoing

job threat stress would have directly reduced well-being and increased ill-being (Schuler

1982; Spector 2002). In addition, where academics felt extremely demanded, pressured,

hectic, agitated, tense and pushed by work (as measured by the Stress in General Scale),

spiritual appraisal at the individual level would likely have had little effect on reducing

stress levels. These findings substantiate the earlier view that the effectiveness of

spirituality in coping with stress depends on the level of stress experienced (Youngmee

& Seidlitz 2002).

The results of this current study may also help to substantiate Spector’s (2002) view that

different types of stressors can influence different types of well-being or ill-being. For

example, high-level stressors (e.g., heavy work loads) have been found to be linked to

physical symptoms of ill-being (Spector 2002). To preserve reliability of the measures,

total well-being and ill-being scores were used in the present study, rather than

individual subscale scores of social, somatic, emotional, cognitive and sexual well-

being, and depression, anxiety and somatic ill-being.

The following sections will discuss the results of the current study in relation to

previous research and theory. Specifically, Section 6.1.1 will discuss direct influences

of job stress and spirituality at work on health, and Section 6.1.2 will outline moderation

influence of spirituality on job stress and health.

6.1.1 Relevance to Direct Relationships between Spirituality, Stress and

Well-being Evidenced in Previous Studies and Theory

The results were consistent with the plethora of literature evidencing the link between

both life stress and health (e.g., Elfering et al. 2005; Jamal 2005; Karlsen et al. 2006;

Lazuras 2006; Love et al. 2007; Noblet et al. 2005; Shields 2006), and job stress and

health (e.g., Palliser et al. 2005; Siying et al. 2007). For example, Edmondson et al.

(2005) reported that stress was linked to decreased health. Stress was measured with

cardiovascular responses to stressors and health was measured by physical symptoms.

Edmondson and colleagues’ regression analyses illustrated that stress predicted negative

aspects of health. It seems that due to the statistically significant findings, the link

111

between job stress and health can be expanded to the general population of Australian

academics.

In terms of direct effects of spirituality and stress on well-being and ill-being, the results

were consistent with MacLachlan et al. (1999) who found no significant differences,

positive or negative in stress, psychological and physiological health in participants who

attended a Tibetan retreat for four years. The researchers assessed the effect of

participation in the retreat at different intervals over the four-year period using a health

measure and a stress measure. Residence at the retreat did not show any harmful or

beneficial effects on the participants’ levels of stress and general well-being.

MacLachlan et al.’s study used participants ranging from 23 to 67 years. MacLachlan

and colleagues’ results were consistent with that of the current study because spirituality

did not have a statistically significant influence on stress or well-being of participants.

It is possible that MacLachlan et al.’s (1999) results are consistent with the current

study’s results because both studies recruited a similar age range of participants and

MacLachlan et al. used a religious-based spirituality intervention. It could be argued

that in the current study spirituality at work failed to directly influence job stress

because academics may have interpreted ‘spirituality’ as ‘religion’. From MacLachlan

et al.’s study it appears that religious-based spirituality does not directly influence stress

in mature-aged samples (compared to that of student samples). Furthermore, MacFie et

al (2005) reported that religious-based spirituality did not significantly predict stress in

psychology graduate students when religious-based spirituality was measured.

Moreover, the negative influence of religion on well-being and stress was evidenced by

Ardelt (2003) who found that religious activities were actually linked to increased fear

of death and death avoidance. In addition, Calicchia and Graham (2006) ascertained

that participants who reported higher levels of existential well-being experienced less

stress from their spouse or partner and extended family. Participants who reported

higher levels of religious well-being actually tended to report greater health problems.

These consistencies with the current study support the view that due to the tenuous

relationship between religion and stress (Ryan & Fiorito 2003) spirituality did not

influence job stress directly in the current study, because academics who participated in

this study may have misinterpreted spirituality for religion. This misinterpretation may

have occurred despite the researcher’s best efforts to clearly distinguish between the two

112

concepts. Alternatively, this may indicate that spirituality does not influence job stress

directly.

The results of the present study are consistent with the findings of Powers et al. (2007)

who claimed that life stress more strongly predicted ill-being than did spirituality.

Contradictory to the current study’s results, Powers et al. confirmed that spirituality

remained a significant predictor of decreased ill-being when life stress was controlled.

Also differing from the current study, Powers and colleagues indicated that in predicting

well-being, spirituality was the only remaining significant influence when life stress

was controlled. Powers et al. recruited different participants, namely Liberal Arts

students who averaged an age of 18 years. The inconsistency with these findings could

well be attributed to the age of the respondents, the artistic and liberal bias of the sample

and other demographic variables. It is reasonable to assume that spirituality is better

able to influence health and stress in younger samples.

Powers et al. (2007) measured life stress, rather than work-related stress, and individual

spirituality, as opposed to work-place spirituality, which also could have affected the

results. A different measure of subjective well-being (negative affect, positive affect

and depression) was used, as opposed to the multi-dimensional health states scale used

in the current study. Powers and colleagues’ measure of well-being consisted of only

emotional aspects of well-being, rather than both physical and emotional aspects. The

average life stress score for Powers et al.’s study was quite low, indicating the level of

stress experienced by participants, was different to that of the current study. It could be

argued that under normal circumstances, spirituality can directly influence health, but in

unusual circumstances, spirituality may not be effective in directly influencing health.

This consistency with the current findings substantiates the view that the effectiveness

of spirituality in coping with stress depends on the level of stress experienced

(Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002).

The results of the current research were inconsistent with earlier studies that indicated

spirituality had direct effects on well-being and ill-being. This could be due to the

characteristics of the respondents, such as their age, religious-orientations or life

experience. For example, Lustyk et al. (2006) found that participants with higher levels

of existential well-being tended to experience fewer symptoms of premenstrual

113

symptomatology. The researchers also showed that spirituality partially mediated the

relationship between life stress and premenstrual symptomatology. The inconsistency

with the current study’s findings could be attributed to the fact that Lustyk et al.’s study

consisted of female students, aging between eighteen and twenty-one years, and more

than half belonged to Catholic religious denominations. The present study’s sample

was quite different in terms of gender, and the scales used to measure well-being, stress

and spirituality. Lustyk and colleagues’ measure of well-being was purely physical and

gender specific, and spirituality and stress were not work-specific.

The results of the current study were also different to that of Edmondson et al. (2005)

who verified through regression analyses that spirituality was linked directly to better

health. The researchers used female college students averaging twenty-one years of

age. An individual measure of spirituality was administered as well as a physical health

measure of well-being. The inconsistencies with the current study’s findings could also

be attributed to the different participants sampled and measures utilised.

The results were not consistent with that of Wilding et al. (2006) who demonstrated that

spirituality was viewed as extremely important by health nurses for mentally ill patients

and was seen as life-nourishing. In addition to the differing sample, spirituality was

investigated qualitatively not quantitatively. Ardelt (2003) posited a direct positive

influence of spirituality on well-being and stress amongst older adults from several

social groups. Purpose in life (rather than religion) was also linked to increased elderly

participants’ subjective well-being and was related to decreased fear of death and death

avoidance. In addition, Calicchia and Graham (2006) established that graduate students

who reported higher levels of spirituality experienced less stress from their spouse or

partner and extended family. These discrepancies could be attributed to the different

sample used in terms of age and occupation. The following section will compare the

results of the current study to that of previous research, which investigated the

moderation influences of spirituality on job stress and health.

114

6.1.2 Relevance to Moderation Influences between Spirituality, Stress

and Well-being Evidenced in Previous Studies and Theory

After reviewing previous studies and the findings of the current study, it is conceivable

that only individual spirituality, and not spirituality at work, has direct effects on well-

being or ill-being. This could be because the measure used in this study eliminated the

personal or transcendent aspects of spirituality, in order to make the measure more work

specific (Milliman et al. 2003). It could be argued that spiritual appraisal of stressors

are best measured with these highly personal aspects of spirituality, rather than through

finding meaning and purpose at work. This suggests that well-being and ill-being of

academics were predominantly influenced by job stress. As the assumptions of the

statistical analyses were met and the measures used demonstrated previous reliability,

the moderation analyses provided very little evidence to suggest that any of the three

types of spirituality at work buffered the relationship between job stress (job threat and

pressure stress) and well-being or ill-being.

The results were consistent with previous studies that reported no moderation effects of

religious-based spirituality on stress and well-being. For example, Ellison (1991, p. 88)

ascertained that “divine interaction” did not buffer the negative effects of trauma on

well-being amongst the general population. Fabricatore et al. (2000) concluded that

religious-based spirituality did not moderate the relationship between stress and

subjective well-being amongst undergraduate students. Ellison et al. (2001)

demonstrated no stress-buffering effects involving frequency of prayer or frequency of

church attendance amongst adults. The researchers argued that there was no evidence to

suggest that religious involvement buffered the effects of multiple stressors on distress

or well-being. These consistencies with the current study also support the view that

spirituality did not influence job stress directly, because academics may have

misinterpreted spirituality for religion. Alternatively, the consistency of results may

indicate that spirituality at work does not buffer multiple stressors or health (as defined

in this study).

The results of the present research were inconsistent with earlier studies that reported

moderation effects of spirituality on the relationship between stress and health. In their

115

findings, Youngmee and Seidlitz (2002) argued that spirituality was not directly related

to stress, ill-being or well-being, but instead moderated the relationship between stress

and health. The authors sampled college students ranging between 19 and 33 years.

Youngmee and Seidlitz used an individual spirituality measure and a life stress scale.

Well-being and ill-being were measured by physical symptoms, negative affect and

positive affect. Youngmee and Seidlitz’s results could have varied from that of the

current study because, on average, students in their study reported very low levels of

stress. Again, it seems that spirituality is more likely to moderate the influence of life

stress on health among younger individuals experiencing low or moderate amounts of

stress. These discrepancies could also be attributed to the different measures used.

The results of the study were inconsistent with studies that demonstrated moderation

effects of individual spirituality on the influence of stress on a few aspects of well-being

or ill-being, such as depression, positive affect, life satisfaction and self-esteem. For

example, Elam (2000) established that spirituality moderated the relationship between

stress and depression, positive affect and life satisfaction, but not stress and anxiety or

negative affect. Elam used individual spirituality, life stress and subjective well-being

measures, and sampled undergraduate students. Elam’s findings could have varied from

the results of the current study because Elam used a younger sample and administered

different scales. It is interesting to note that Elam did not specify the average age or

stress levels of participants. Hence, whether there was a difference in the samples’

average stress levels and age cannot be verified.

Hong (2008) reported that spirituality moderated the relationship between well-being

and stress among undergraduate students (average age or stress level was not specified).

A measure of self-transcendence meaning of life, psychological well-being (mental-

health problems, depression and self-esteem effects) and academic stress were used. It

is plausible that Hong’s results varied from the current study because of the different

measures administered and the younger participants sampled. It is important to note,

however, that in Hong’s study sense of adequacy and anxiety were not moderated.

These inconsistencies could also be attributed to the nature of the work or job

characteristics (Hackman & Oldham 1975) and previous experience of individuals

(Calicchia & Graham 2006). The link between job characteristics and job stress has

116

long been established (Landsbergis 1988; Shaw & Riskind 1983). Different types of

job characteristics (and therefore stressors) are likely to be present when comparing

academic student life to academic teaching life. Shaw and Riskind (1983) claim that a

strong relationship exists between the behavioural characteristics of different jobs and

the levels of various stresses experienced by groups of employees in those jobs.

Landsbergis (1988) argue that jobs which combine high workload demands with low

decision latitude lead to higher job strain (job dissatisfaction, depression, psychosomatic

symptoms) and burnout.

Hackman and Oldham (1975) claimed that the amount of skill variety, task identity, task

significance, autonomy and feedback present in a job will determine employee job

satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover. It could be argued that academics may have

worked without supportive feedback on their performance. In contrast, students in

consistent learning environments are likely to be able to practise a wide range of

acquired skills, identify that their efforts lead to an end product (such as obtaining a

grade or degree), have task significance, responsibility for their own learning and

positive feedback from their teachers. In addition, inconsistencies in results could be

due to differing job characteristics and individual differences between samples used in

earlier studies and that of the current study.

Calicchia and Graham (2006) established that the influence of stress on well-being was

affected by internal person factors (such as previous experience) and external factors

(such as occupation). It could be argued that having previous experience may enable

academics to cope with stress, without utilising spiritual appraisal as academics have

likely refined coping strategies over time to deal with day-to-day stressors. In addition,

the degree to which a particular occupation is stressful will likely determine whether

spiritual appraisal is effective. For example, highly stressful occupations such as

teaching (Briggs 2009; Houston et al. 2006; Tytherleigh et al. 2005) may not enable

spirituality to be effective in buffering the influence of stress on health (Youngmee &

Seidlitz 2002).

The results lend support to Maslow’s (1943, 1954, 1968) theory in that when lower-

order needs, such as physiological and safety needs, were under threat (due to high work

demands), academics’ desire for belongingness and self-actualisation subsided, so that

117

lower-order needs could be achieved. It could be argued that academics focus on lower-

order needs, such as keeping up with work demands, rather than having time to seek

higher-order needs, such as seeking socially responsible, meaningful and purposeful

projects.

This direct influence of job threat stress on well-being and ill-being provided further

support for Lazarus and Folkman’s original (1984) transactional model of stress and

coping, which contends that cognitive appraisal during stressful situations has an impact

on health. The model also suggests that the effects of stress influences health

differently over time. Academics would have engaged in primary appraisal in order to

perceive job threat stressors as stressful, then in secondary appraisal they would have

evaluated what might be done about a stressful situation and whether they had the

coping resources to deal with the stressor. An important aspect of Lazarus and

Folkman’s model is that perception of whether the stressor is negative, positive or

neutral rests largely on the skills, needs and values of the particular individual. The

current study supports this model as the average level of job pressure stress of

academics was quite high, yet job pressure stress did not lead to increased ill-being

and/or decreased well-being. This suggests that job pressure stress did not influence the

health of academics because job pressures may have been short-term in nature,

perceived as not very threatening and therefore, seen as within the academic’s ability to

cope. Yet job threat stress led to increased ill-being and decreased well-being, which

suggests that academic’s health was influenced by job threat stress because job threat

stressors may have been ongoing, viewed as quite threatening and therefore, outside the

academic’s ability to cope.

The results of the study did not provide support for Gall et al.’s (2005) theory of

spiritual appraisal as employees who perceived higher levels of spirituality at work did

not appraise job stressors as less threatening than employees who perceived lower levels

of spirituality at work. It is possible that spirituality at work buffers the influence of job

stress on well-being and ill-being, but not amongst academic teaching staff. This

finding substantiates Narayanswamy’s (2008) critical view that tertiary education

(specifically the management discipline) is extremely intellect-driven and does not

create well-rounded leaders who are able to deal with diverse groups of people. In

contrast, some disciplines such as social work are realising the importance of

118

incorporating spirituality into professional university courses. Rothman (2009)

concurred however, that in the area of social work, students see spirituality as a

necessary component in their education before professional practice. Rothman also

claims that professionals working in the area of social work view spirituality as a

personal, individual and internal experience, while the general population see

spirituality as being linked with organised religion.

It could be reasoned that the particular disciplines sampled in the current study also

contributed to the lack of support for the research hypotheses. For example, only a

small percentage of the sample in the current study reported that they came from the

Social Work discipline. If disciplines, such as Social Work, value spirituality, and these

were underrepresented, it is possible that the results were distorted by other disciplines,

which do not value spirituality as much. In the current study the largest grouping of

participants sampled came from Social Sciences (almost one quarter), followed by

Business, Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Education, and Information and

Communication Technologies respectively. Only a very small percentage came from

the Social Work, Health, Christian Studies, or Arts, Child and Family Studies. Hodge

(2003) claims that organised religion in the social work profession are actually

underrepresented. It is probable that the current generation of academics (from all

disciplines) do not feel the need for spiritual appraisal or are not spiritually inclined.

It could be possible that academics in the current study did not feel the need to utilise

spiritual appraisal because the average academic generally belongs to a highly

conservative, religiously educated, ‘Baby-Booming’ generation (Patterson 2007). As

these older academics’ professional role is to teach, it is likely that they do not utilise

concepts or tools that they find difficult to teach. For example, it may be a dilemma to

some academics to teach or talk about spirituality with their students (Rothman 2009).

Furthermore, Ballantyne et al. (1999) claim that Australian academics tend to teach their

students how they themselves were taught in university, staying loyal to traditional

methods and strategies without reflecting on their appropriateness or effectiveness.

Ballantyne and colleagues believe that the very nature of academia (logical and

scientific) conflicts with the contemporary academic life of making sense of

contradictions and dilemmas, grasping new ideas and methods, interacting with students

and colleagues, and juggling the increasing demands of teaching and research. It seems

119

that the well-educated, logical and rational mindset of academics could sometimes

conflict with the ‘soft’, subjective, diverse and complex notion of spirituality (Zajonc

2003).

Similarly, Schuler (1982) suggests that individual characteristics, such as physical

condition, social support, life experience and self-esteem, can determine whether stress

will influence an individual’s health. These findings substantiate earlier views which

maintain that academics typically view spirituality, faith, moral code and values as

opposing science, reason and fact (Zajonc 2003). Therefore, Rothman (2009) argues

that spirituality is an especially challenging concept for academics. Rothman questions

whether something as complex and difficult to communicate can be discussed

meaningfully in an academic context. In addition, academic teaching staff are a unique

sample and appear to experience higher levels of stress than other occupations (Houston

et al. 2006). Furthermore, Winefield et al. (2003) argue that the working conditions of

academics is becoming more demanding and stressful, which maybe hindering their

spiritual development (Astin & Astin 1999).

In addition, research on spirituality which used moderation models were conducted on

non-Australian samples (e.g., Fabricatore et al. 2000; Hong 2008; Powers et al. 2007;

Ryan & Fiorito 2003; Youngmee & Seidlitz 2002), therefore it is possible that cultural

differences contributed to the lack of support for the research hypotheses. Giacalone

and Jurkiewicz (2003b) argued that one of the reasons for the increased interest in

spirituality is that developed countries, like Australia and the United States of America,

are becoming more culturally diverse and more accepting of diverse business practices.

It was expected that Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) model of spirituality at work

(empirically tested in the United States of America) would be generalisable to

Australian samples, as both cultures are similar in terms of individualistic cultures and

similar management practices (Hofstede 1980; Westwood & Posner 1997). Therefore,

it could be said that spirituality at work may be more important in Australian corporate

businesses (e.g., SLaM Network), which are often American subsidiaries (Wood 2000).

It is therefore possible that spirituality in academic environments may gain more

momentum in the future. The hypotheses regarding results of work-life balance and

work-life conflict analyses will be discussed in the following section.

120

6.2 Hypothesis (2): Moderator Models for Work-life Balance and Work-life Conflict

Results of the initial correlation analyses (see Table 5.3) suggested that academics with

high levels of spirituality at work (individual, work unit and organisation-wide) tended

to experience fewer instances of work-life conflict and fewer instances of job stress

(threat and pressure) and more instances of work-life balance. As academics’ job threat

and pressure stress increased, their perceptions of work-life conflict also tended to

increase and their perception of work-life balance tended to decrease.

At a multivariate level, however, both job threat and pressure stress significantly

predicted decreased work-life balance over and above individual and organisation-wide

spirituality at work and the interaction variables (see Table 5.4.2.1). Work-unit

spirituality at work significantly predicted increased work-life balance over and above

individual and organisation-wide spirituality at work and the interaction variables. Yet,

job threat stress was more important in predicting work-life balance than was job

pressure stress and work-unit spirituality at work, respectively. Both job threat and

pressure stress significantly predicted increased work-life conflict over and above

spirituality at work and the interaction variables (see Table 5.4.2.2). Though, job threat

stress was more important in predicting work-life conflict than was job pressure stress.

In this present study, when academic teaching staff felt irritated, lacked control, nerve-

wracked, hassled, uncomfortable and overwhelmed (due to their work), they

experienced less balance between their work and personal life, and more conflict

between their personal and work lives. In addition, when academics felt demanded,

pressured, hectic, agitated, tense and pushed (by work pressures), they experienced less

work-life balance, and more work-life conflict. Furthermore, it seems that feelings of

anxiety and being internally threatened by work, more strongly influenced academics’

work-life balance and work-life conflict than did time and pressure demands.

The fact that individual and organisation-wide spirituality at work were related to work-

life balance and work-life conflict at the bivariate level but not at the multivariate level,

could be attributed to the direct relationships between job stress and work-life issues.

As presented in Table 5.3 the strongest bivariate correlations in the study were between

121

the job stress, and work-life variables. Except for the case of work-unit spirituality and

work-life balance, it could be reasoned that in this sample job threat stress and job

pressure stress were so strongly linked with work-life issues, that any positive influence

spirituality at work had on work-life balance or conflict, was overridden by job pressure

and job threat stress.

In contrast to the well-being and ill-being analyses, both job threat stress and pressure

stress directly predicted work-life balance and work-life conflict. It was argued

previously that job pressure stress did not influence health, but job threat stress did

because academics in this sample were exhibiting temporary but high levels of job

pressure stress, and ongoing job threat stress (Schuler 1982; Spector 2002). The results

suggest that short-term high job pressure stress may lead to academics’ increased work-

life conflict and decreased work-life balance, but not to academics’ health. In addition,

long-term job threat stress may lead to academics’ decreased health, low work-life

balance and high work-life conflict.

It is likely that temporary but intense job pressure stressors or particular job

characteristics resulted in academics taking unfinished work home to complete. In the

short-term, this could lead to work and personal life conflicting, and having less time to

balance work and personal responsibilities. The presence of ongoing job threat stressors

(e.g., large amounts of work, juggling multiple tasks, conflict with colleagues, teaching

or research, teaching and research or professional development) may also have resulted

in work-related anxiety, which in turn may have affected the academics personal life. In

the long-term, this could also have led to work and personal life conflicting, role

conflict at work and having less time to balance personal and work responsibilities.

Furthermore, Byrne (2005) contends that changes in work conditions can significantly

affect the work-life interface. Therefore, restructures, changes in reporting

relationships, role overloads and other significant challenges and changes in the work

environment causing high pressure and anxiety, could create imbalance or conflict

between the work-life domains.

It was claimed that the detrimental effect of job stress on work-life balance and work-

life conflict could be buffered by spirituality at work. As the assumptions of the

statistical analyses were met, and the work-life balance scale factor analysis

122

demonstrated good factor structure, the moderation analyses provided no evidence to

suggest that any of the three types of spirituality at work buffered the relationship

between job stress (job threat and pressure stress) and work-life balance or work-life

conflict. Due to the lack of previous research on the specific buffering effects of

spirituality, these initial results signify that spirituality at work does not buffer the

influence of job stress on work-life balance or work-life conflict.

It could also be plausible that work-unit spirituality (sense of community) did not

moderate the relationship between job stress and work-life balance because in

environments such as in this study, where job threat stress is ongoing, spiritual appraisal

may be seen to be ineffective at the work-unit level in buffering stress’s influence on

work-life balance. If many academics felt irritated, lacking in control, nerve-wracked,

hassled, uncomfortable and overwhelmed due to work-related issues over a prolonged

period of time, work-unit spiritual appraisal may be seen as less effective in reducing

these job threat stressors than other means, such as delegating the overflow of tasks.

Therefore, sense of community may not buffer the influences of job threat stress on

work-life balance.

It is probable that many academics in this sample were experiencing high levels of job

pressure stress (see Table 5.1), therefore the ability of work-unit spirituality in buffering

its influence on work-life balance was totally overridden by job pressure stress.

Therefore, job pressure stress would influence work-life issues directly. It could be

reasoned that academics felt their jobs were extremely demanding, pressured, hectic,

agitated, tense and felt pushed by work, therefore work-unit spiritual appraisal in this

study was not able to buffer the influence of job pressure stress on work-life balance.

The following section will discuss the current study’s results in terms of previous

theories.

6.2.1 Consistency with Previous Theoretical Models

These results lend some support to Zedeck’s (1992) spillover theory, which suggested

that a person’s attitudes, emotions, skills and behaviours produced in one domain (either

work or personal life) flow into the other. This spillover can be positive (facilitation) or

123

negative (conflict) and could occur in both directions, for example, from work-to-

personal life, or personal life-to-work. The results give support to negative spillover in

the work-to-personal life direction (only work-to-personal life spillover investigated), as

job stress directly influenced academic’s ability to balance their personal and work

lives, and directly led to increased conflict between academic’s work and personal lives.

The fact that work-unit spirituality, and not individual or organisation-wide spirituality

at work, influenced work-life balance could be attributed to the nature of the sample.

As shown in Table 5.3 on average, academics reported high levels of individual

spirituality at work, medium-to-high levels of work-unit spirituality at work, and

medium levels of organisation-wide spirituality at work. On average, academics

experienced medium-to-high levels of work-life balance and medium levels of work-life

conflict. If the respondents of this study were experiencing significant changes in the

work environment, leading to work-related anxiety or taking extra work home, having a

sense of community might well be seen as relevant in dealing with work-life balance.

Sense of community has the potential to aid work-life balance via social support, shared

resources and collective values (Ballantyne et al. 1999). For example, colleagues could

support one another by listening to each of their concerns, banding together as a team,

offering advice on how to deal with work-life issues, and sharing workloads.

Meaningful work and alignment with organisational values were not shown by the

moderation analyses to help academics achieve work-life balance, probably because

work-related anxiety issues took precedence over the use of more spiritual tools.

Schuler (1982) argues that one method of dealing with stress is information seeking or

problem solving, which permits employees to reduce uncertainty regarding resolution of

the stressful condition. Due to the intellectual nature of academics, information seeking

would likely appeal to most academics, more so than spiritual appraisal. Furthermore,

belonging to an organisation that has similar values to one’s own, and having to perform

meaningful work, more than likely is not enough to foster work-life balance when there

are significant challenges in the work environment.

These results lend support to the management theory of transformational leadership, in

which employees are argued to be inspired to attain meaning and purpose in work,

shared vision and emotional arousal, rather than be motivated by rewards and security

124

(Dehler & Welsh 1994). It could be stated that sense of community was achieved via

work-unit leaders appealing to academics’ higher sense of purpose and aligning the

leader’s vision with employee values (DuBrin et al. 2006). Thus, having a higher sense

of purpose and having sense of community among work-units enabled academics to

foster work-life balance. The following section will discuss the results of the current

study in relation to that of previous studies.

6.2.2 Consistency with Previous Studies

These findings were consistent with studies conducted by Astin and Astin (1999), Burke

et al. (2003), Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), Hobsor et al. (2001), Lingard et al. (2007),

Tytherleigh et al. (2005), Wallace (2005), Waltman and Sullivan (2007) and Wong and

Lin (2007) which indicated (utilising many different measures) that high levels of job

stress tended to decrease work-life balance and increase work-life conflict among a

variety of occupations, including academics. To highlight the consistency of results and

use of different measures, Burke et al. (2003) measured work-life balance with a scale

assessing the extent to which psychologists’ organisational values supported work-life

balance and found that more supportive organisational values of work-life balance were

linked to lower job stress. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) assessed work-life conflict in

terms of work-family role pressure incompatibility amongst a variety of samples.

Greenhaus and Beutell found that work-family conflict existed when stress from

participation in one role makes it difficult to fulfil requirements of another, for example,

where job stress influences the fulfilling of personal-life duties.

Wong and Lin (2007) measured work-life conflict with work-to-leisure conflict scale

which measured the frequency participants perceive conflict between work interference

with leisure life amongst full-time employees in the tourist industry. Wong and Lin

demonstrated that job stress had a direct detrimental influence on work-life conflict.

Wallace (2005) assessed the extent to which work demands interfered with home and

family life, the extent to which family activities had to be changed to accommodate

work, and the extent to which it was difficult to fulfil family responsibilities because of

work demands. Wallace also investigated the extent to which strain from work made it

difficult to fulfil family duties, and the extent to which demands of the job made it

125

difficult to do things participants want to do at home. Wallace reported that job stress

had direct harmful influences on work-life conflict amongst lawyers.

Specifically, these results of the current study were consistent with O'Laughlin and

Bischoff’s (2005) study, which demonstrated that work-life conflict among academics

was primarily predicted by job stress (over and above average work hours, household

responsibility, young children, satisfaction with day care and support of partner). It

appears that academics experience the influence of job stress on work-issues in the same

way as that of other occupations.

The results of the study were partially consistent with previous empirical studies

conducted by Mitroff and Denton’s (1999b) and Astin and Astin’s (1999) which

evidenced a link between spirituality at work and both work-life balance and work-life

conflict. The results were only partially consistent because Mitroff and Denton’s

(1999b) and Astin and Astin’s (1999) studies did not use the same methods or measures

of spirituality at work or measure work-life balance specifically, such as the current

study did. Therefore, the results cannot be entirely compared. For example, Mitroff

and Denton used qualitative methods, such as asking participants what gave them the

most meaning and purpose in their jobs. Participants responded that having good

colleagues as well as serving human kind was the fifth most important factor. This

suggests that by fostering work-unit spirituality in the workplace, organisations in turn

could also be helping employees balance their personal and work needs. As discussed

in Section 1.3 (p.14), positive spillover (or facilitation) is where participation in work,

home and personal life contribute beneficially to each other (Balmforth & Gardner

2006; Hanson et al. 2006). Therefore, it could be argued that having a sense of

community and joint purpose within employee work-units helps to foster balance

between the personal and work-life of employees (Ashmos & Duchon 2000; Balmforth

& Gardner 2006; Milliman et al. 2003). The results of the current study differ from

Mitroff and Denton’s as in the present study, not all aspects (e.g., individual and

organisation-wide) of spirituality at work influenced work-life balance. This was

attributed to the strong relationship between job stress and work-life balance and work-

life conflict.

126

In addition the moderation results were also partially consistent with Astin and Astin

(1999) who interviewed academic staff about their expressions of spirituality and

finding meaning in their work and work-life issues. Their results varied from the

current study in that academics saw their research and teaching as a means of expressing

their spirituality or finding meaning in life. Astin and Astin found that academics were

trying to find ways to make their lives and workplaces more complete. Astin and

Astin’s findings are consistent with the current study in that sense of community, or

work-unit level spirituality at work, influenced work-life balance. In contrast to the

current study though, meaning and purpose (individual level of spirituality at work) did

not influence work-life balance. The differences in the findings could be attributed to

the fact that Astin and Astin did not measure work-life balance or spirituality at work

quantitatively as the current study did.

The results of the moderation analyses were partially consistent with non-empirical

studies conducted by Briggins (1996), Burack (1999), Laabs (1995) and Marques

(2005). These studies demonstrated through concept discussion and case studies that

incorporating spirituality into the workplace involved giving employees flexibility to

balance work-life issues and tailor work around their own individual needs, as well as

encouraging employees to become their complete selves at work. The results were

consistent with Sullivan and Mainiero (2008) who argued that authenticity (spirituality)

was important in determining employees’ work-life balance.

To the current researcher’s knowledge, no previous research has investigated whether

spirituality at work moderates the influence of job stress on work-life balance and work-

life conflict. Therefore, the results of the work-life balance and work-life conflict

moderation analyses in the current study are difficult to compare with past literature

involving moderation models.

The results from this study indicate that work-life balance practices are equally

important for male and female Australian academics, which adds to the growing

evidence suggesting work-life balance is applicable to both men and women. The

findings were consistent with more recent studies which reported no significant gender

differences among academics’ work-life balance (e.g., Tytherleigh 2007). These results

127

were, however, inconsistent with previous studies reporting higher levels of work-life

conflict in women than men among a variety of samples (Hill 2005; Rothbard 2001).

There are currently more women entering the workforce and higher education than in

the past, and therefore they are delaying starting a family longer than previous

generations (Miller & Hollenshead 2005). However, Miller and Hollenshead (2005)

claim that family concerns in academia are no longer limited to women. For both male

and female academics, conflict occurs between work demands and a variety of personal

life demands, including child care, caring for the elderly and health issues (Miller &

Hollenshead 2005).

Alternatively, it could be reasoned that female academics experienced more work-life

conflict but were better at coping with it than their male colleagues. For example,

Doyle and Hind (1998) demonstrated that women academics perceived the structure and

content of their jobs similarly to men, experienced higher levels of job stress than men,

but coped better with work demands than their male counterparts. Therefore, it is likely

that identifying gender differences in work-life balance and conflict issues is dependant

on how the concepts are defined and measured.

The results were consistent with previous findings that reported equal levels of work-

life balance for males and females among a variety of different occupations (Balmforth

& Gardner 2006; Brough et al. 2005; Hill et al. 2001; Hill et al. 1998). For example,

Balmforth and Gardner (2006) sampled all employees within a human resource

consultancy organisation. Brough et al. (2005) recruited different levels of employees

from a variety of large organisations, and different industries. Hill et al. (2001) also

surveyed employees from a large international business and Hill (1998) studied

employees from marketing and service sectors of IBM. These studies reported no

gender differences in work-life issues amongst several different non-academic samples.

With the exception of Burke et al.’s (2003) study, the previous work-life balance and

conflict literature discussed were conducted in the United States of America. Therefore,

it is possible that cultural differences contributed to the lack of evidence supporting a

relationship between spirituality at work and work-life balance and conflict. However,

as explained earlier, both Australian and American cultures are similar in terms of

128

individualistic cultures and similar management practices (Hofstede 1980; Westwood &

Posner 1997). Therefore, it is unlikely that the results of the current study can be

attributed solely to cultural differences. As with spirituality at work and health, it is

likely that the influence of spirituality at work on work-life issues is more important in

Australian corporate businesses, rather than in higher education. The following section

will discuss the implications of the current research.

6.3 Implications of the Study

The current study aimed to address gaps in the existing spirituality at work literature,

particularity in the lack of spirituality at work research on Australian academic teaching

staff samples. The study improved on many previous studies, which extrapolated

definitions and measures of individual spirituality to the workplace. Instead this

research used an existing spirituality at work measure, which has been previously

reported to demonstrate good reliability and validity. It also went further than

conceptual discussion of spirituality at work, to empirical testing of spirituality at

work’s influences on HRM issues. Instead of investigating the relationship between

individual spirituality, life stress and well-being, the present study investigated

spirituality at work’s influence on well-being, ill-being, work-life balance, work-life

conflict and job stress (threat and pressure) specifically. Multidimensional measures of

these variables were used to understand better the complex nature of spirituality at work

and its potential positive and negative influences on employee and organisational

outcomes.

The present study contributed to the current literature, as, to the researcher’s knowledge,

spirituality at work’s influences on the employee outcomes of ill-being, well-being,

work-life balance, work-life conflict and job stress had not been investigated. This

research also builds on the sparse existing literature investigating spirituality amongst

Australian academics; spirituality and job stress; and the effects of spirituality on work-

life issues. Moderation effects of spirituality on job stress, health and work-life

practices had not been investigated in a workplace-specific context. This research also

adds to the existing spirituality at work literature, because it made use of empirical

methods and investigated whether an existing spiritual appraisal model, linking stress

129

and well-being, could be applied to a work context. Most importantly, this research is

among the pioneering studies to investigate moderation effects of spirituality at work on

job stress, health and work-life issues in an Australian academic setting. The

implications of the results will be discussed in terms of both practical use in

management and theoretical application.

6.3.1 Implications for HR Managers and Academic Staff

Generally, the results implied that spirituality at work (at the individual, work-unit and

organisation-wide levels) does not thus far directly predict higher well-being or lower

ill-being amongst Australian academics. Spirituality at work also does not yet moderate

the influence of job stress on well-being or ill-being, amongst Australian academic staff.

In situations where job threat stress is ongoing, spiritual appraisal of work stressors

seems to be ineffective. Also, in environments where job pressure stress is very high,

the ability of spirituality to moderate the influence of job stress on health is overridden.

This suggests that well-being and ill-being of academics are predominantly influenced

by job stress. In other words, achieving meaningful work, a sense of community among

colleagues and experiencing alignment between employees’ own values and that of their

organisation, does not yet foster academics’ well-being or reduce their ill-being directly,

or via buffering effects of job stress.

Job threat stress has a direct detrimental influence on academics’ well-being and ill-

being, while job pressure stress does not directly influence either well-being or ill-

being. Age also has a direct damaging impact on ill-being, however, job threat stress is

more important in predicting ill-being than age. This implies that older academics tend

to experience more symptoms of ill-being than younger academics, but levels of job

threat stress should be considered as a more important risk factor than age in reducing

symptoms of ill-being. Interestingly, job pressure stress does not appear to influence

well-being or ill-being. This may imply that job pressure stress does not influence well-

being or ill-being at all, or that job pressure stress may be only influential of well-being

and ill-being in particular circumstances. Perhaps in the presence of high temporary job

pressure stressors (caused by organisational restructure, or other significant change) and

130

ongoing job threat stressors, job threat stress will influence well-being and ill-being, but

job pressure stress may not.

Thus, universities should contemplate incorporating a stress management (job threat

focus) component into HRM programs promoting well-being, and interventions aimed

at combating ill-being. As discussed in Section 1.2 job threat stress relates to anxiety or

overwhelming feelings of job stress, while pressure represented time and demand

aspects of job stress (Stanton et al. 2001). Therefore, person-centred stress management

techniques could be considered in order to promote well-being and combat ill-being.

Examples are employee relaxation, exercise, good eating habits and counselling

(Aderman & Tecklenburg 1983; Bruning & Frew 1985; Palmer & Dryden 1994;

Richardson & Rothstein 2008; Stone 2008). Age-related interventions should also be

considered in combating symptoms of ill-being among older academics. For example,

Dale (2004) recommends that occupational therapists should classify deskbound work

as physically demanding and potentially risky for the development of musculoskeletal

disorders among older academics, and occupational therapists should focus on

modifying the physical environment of older employees. Also, interventions aimed at

promoting moderate levels of physical activity among older adults could be

recommended in order to improve mental health (Mummery, Schofield & Caperchione

2004).

It is important that universities emphasise the importance of employees utilising stress

management programs because higher levels of stress can lead to low productivity,

increased absenteeism and turnover, as well as individual employee problems, such as

alcohol and drug abuse, and health problems (Mostert et al. 2008). Job stress has been

widely linked with adverse effects on employee psychological and physical well-being,

such as high blood pressure, migraine, recurrent virus infections and stomach ulcers

(see Kinman & Jones 2003), as well as being related to burnout, job dissatisfaction, lack

of organisational commitment, lower productivity and increased turnover (see Blix et al.

1994; Elfering et al. 2005; Goddard et al. 2006; Jamal 2005; Noblet et al. 2005).

Even though many universities already have Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) in

place (e.g., Monash University 2009; Swinburne University of Technology 2009), HR

managers may also need to be educated on the benefits of these interventions so that

131

they can implement and encourage more employees to make use of them. Even if these

interventions are available and recommended, academics may still not be making use of

them. EAPs provide counselling to employees and their immediate families free of

cost, but are often voluntary and require the employee to seek help. Some universities

offer a supervisor assist program as part of EAPs, in which staff can seek assistance in

helping or referring another employee (Monash University 2009). The programs offer

assistance in areas such as career issues, depression, grief, gambling problems, family

and other relationship problems, emotional stress, drug problems, interpersonal conflict

and financial problems (Monash University 2009; Swinburne University of Technology

2009). However, supervisor assist programs also require an employee to take action

and ask for help, as an employee can decline counselling if a supervisor or manager

refers them.

Blake and Lloyd (2008) suggest that effective implementation of well-being

interventions requires an organisational culture which promotes good health. Blake and

Lloyd argue that this can be achieved through a combination of education, behaviour

change interventions, and services and strategies for developing healthy work

environments. They also recommend high-level managerial support for well-being

programs, and allowing employees time to adopt and maintain healthy behaviours.

In addition to well-being interventions, the results have implications for work-life

issues. Work-life balance and work-life conflict were found to be experienced equally

by academic men and women. This highlights the importance of HRM programs for

both male and female academics, particularly work-life balance and work-life conflict

issues, which were seen previously as mainly women’s issues (Hill et al. 2001).

In contrast to the well-being and ill-being analyses, the results imply that both job threat

stress and job pressure stress directly predict work-life balance and work-life conflict

amongst academic staff. The results could imply that job pressure stress influences

academics’ work-life conflict and work-life balance, but not their health. In addition, it

seems that feelings of anxiety and being internally threatened by work (job threat

stress), more strongly influenced academics’ work-life balance and work-life conflict

than did time and pressure demands (job pressure stress). Therefore, restructures and

other significant changes in the work environment causing high pressure and anxiety

132

could create imbalance or conflict between the work-life domains. It appears that

academics experience the influence of job stress on work-issues in the same way as that

of other occupations, such as full-time employees in the tourism industry (see Wallace

2005) lawyers (see Wong & Lin 2007), psychologists (Burke et al. 2003)and variety of

samples (see Greenhaus & Beutell 1985).

As both job threat and pressure stress predicted work-life balance and work-life conflict,

job-centred stress management interventions could be considered in addition to person-

centred stress management interventions. Examples of job-centred stress management

interventions include planning and time management skills, modifying the experience of

stressors, stress audits and changing employees work environment (Bond & Bunce

2000; Bruning & Frew 1985; Gallos 2006; Palmer & Dryden 1994; Richardson &

Rothstein 2008; Stone 2008). Job threat stress interventions can be combated with

person-centred interventions discussed earlier in this section.

Another important implication of the current study is that spirituality at work at the

work-unit level is able to predict higher work-life balance of Australian academics, but

to a lesser extent than does job stress. Except for the influence of work-unit spirituality

on work-life balance, it appears that job threat stress and job pressure stress are so

strongly linked with work-life issues, that any positive influence spirituality at work

may have on work-life balance or conflict, is overridden by job pressure and job threat

stress. In work environments experiencing significant changes which lead to work-

related anxiety or taking extra work home, having a sense of community might well be

seen as relevant in dealing with work-life balance.

But, spirituality at work also does not seem to moderate the influence of job stress on

either work-life balance or work-life conflict. In work environments where job threat

stress is ongoing, spiritual appraisal (even at the work-unit level) may be seen as

ineffective in buffering the influence of stress on work-life balance. In work

environments where job pressure stress is very high, spiritual appraisal probably

becomes irrelevant in buffering stress’s influence on work-life balance and work-life

conflict. This is most likely because work-related anxiety and demand issues take

precedence over the use of more spiritual needs. Due to the rational nature of

133

academics, cognitive appraisal would likely appeal to academics, more so than spiritual

appraisal.

In addition to well-being interventions, universities could consider incorporating both

stress management and work-unit spirituality components into HRM work-life conflict

interventions and work-life balance workshops. Although academics are generally

provided with flexible work schedules or other work-life balance initiatives, one

outcome of these interventions is that work is often completed at home or out of work

hours time (O'Laughlin & Bischoff 2005). Modern work-life balance programs, such as

increased use of technology, working from home and onsite gyms, have been argued to

make it easier for employees not to leave work, rather than creating work-life balance

and minimising work-life conflict (Hill et al. 1998; Pfeffer 2003). Stress management

programs perhaps need to be aimed at separating work and personal life, as well as

incorporating more community engagement into the workplace.

Examples of organisational perspectives used to develop a sense of community and

shared vision among work-units are organisational citizenship behaviour (Guillermo

2008), shared leadership, changing corporate culture (Gallos 2006), perceived

organisational support (Fallon & Richardson 2003) and team building (Mealiea &

Baltazar 2005). Spirituality can also be incorporated into the workplace by

implementing mentoring and career development programs. Sullivan and Mainiero

(2008) suggested providing paid leave to pursue community service activities,

implementing wellness programs which focus on the whole person and offering

workshops on spirituality and finding a higher purpose at work.

The Institute for Management Excellence (2008) suggested implementing spirituality in

the workplace by fostering seven principles: creativity, communication, respect, vision,

partnership, energy and flexibility. Collective reward structures also may be useful to

develop sense of community at work. Pfeffer (2003) argues that collective reward

structures decrease competition between individual employees as well as increasing

knowledge sharing and promoting helping others. Self-managed teams also help to

build employee spirituality at work by providing group-based autonomous decision

making and empowerment (Sexton 1994). Self-managed teams do this by fostering a

134

sense of community and connection to others, creating joint values, positive self-

images, feelings of self-worth and a sense of belongingness (Pfeffer 2003).

These results imply, and support previous perspectives, that universities may be in need

of spiritual HRM practices, but are slow in accepting them. Churchman (2006) found

that academics often felt isolated at work, which contrasted with their expectations and

desires of a community life. Ballantyne et al. (1999) suggests that many academics

would like support from colleagues, but in reality there is little teamwork or sense of

collegiality. Ballantyne and colleagues attributed this to increasing organisational

performance pressures, such as research and accountability, which were often rewarded

rather than teamwork or high quality teaching (which gave academics the most meaning

and purpose in their jobs).

On average, high levels of individual spirituality at work were found among academics

in this sample, yet individual spirituality at work did not influence well-being, job stress

or work-life conflict. Spirituality may not yet have the potential to positively influence

academics and universities over and above job stress management (in terms of well-

being, ill-being, work-life conflict and work-life balance), even if spirituality amongst

academics is high. It does not appear that universities currently utilise non-religious

spiritual practices for competitive advantage like corporate businesses have started. For

example, most universities have a resident chaplain on campus to provide religious-

based spiritual counselling (e.g., Deakin University 2009) to staff and students, but

universities do not currently promote spirituality at the individual, work-unit and

organisation-wide level as part HR interventions or organisational culture.

This may change in time as universities enter the profit-making market (Churchman

2006), and like other businesses across the globe, move into the new spirituality

paradigm (Ashmos & Duchon 2000). Spiritual HRM practices currently may be more

important in Australian corporate businesses. Corner (2009) claims that spirituality at

work is seen as a critical resource for business in the 21st century by academics and

practitioners in terms of business ethics and sense of community and

interconnectedness. In spite of this, universities are not yet currently associated with

spirituality (Astin & Astin 1999). In order to add value to well-being and work-life

135

balance HR interventions, universities should consider including spirituality at work as

part of their organisational culture and interventions.

One role of the HR manager is to promote employee well-being and work-life balance,

therefore the results of this study may also be important for businesses other than

universities. However, HRM programs or interventions aimed at improving work-life

balance and well-being should not be implemented purely to effect the bottom line, or

as a short-term fad (Dehler & Welsh 2003; Marques 2005). Organisations should

develop spiritual, healthy and flexible cultures in order to become socially responsible,

meaningful, community orientated, authentic and employee focussed (Milliman et al.

2003; Mitroff & Denton 1999b). Harrington et al. (2002) predicted that incorporating

spirituality into HRM practices would become an important part of every type of

organisation in the future, big and small. However, Mitroff and Denton (1999a)

suggested that a very important challenge for management in the next millennium

would be incorporating employees’ spiritual needs into the workplace and HRM

practices.

6.3.2 Theoretical Implications

The results imply that Gall et al.’s (2005) spiritual appraisal model may need to be

applied to the academic work environment differently to that of non-work or non-

academic work environments. The ever-increasing pressures and anxieties of academic

life seem to override the outcome of spiritual appraisal of work stressors, even though

previous literature argues a need for spirituality in the workplace. Nevertheless,

incorporating spirituality at work models, such as Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000), into

contemporary management theories of work-life balance, could have potential value to

universities and businesses of the future. Researchers often pointed out the lack of

development in theoretical understanding of how spirituality can be applied to work

(Butts 1999; Cunha et al. 2006; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz 2003b). Therefore, it is

important that researchers continue to empirically assess and refine these models.

It is possible that the new spirituality paradigm will take more of a hold on academia

when university teaching staff are predominately from Generation X (born between

1965 and 1980) and Y (born between 1980 and 2000), instead of the ‘Baby-Boomer’

136

generation (born between 1945 and 1964). Due to the more traditional background of

older academics, there might be an issue with academic interpretations of spirituality

versus religion. Previous research evidenced that spirituality moderated the effects of

stress on health predominantly in young student samples. As discussed in Section 2.1

(p.17), Patterson (2007) claimed that Generation Y were more interested in spirituality,

but less likely to be involved in mainstream religions than were ‘Baby-Boomers’.

Cleveland and Lynem (2005) also argued that Generation X and Y are more likely to

embrace diversity, technology, informality, spirituality and seek work-life balance than

the ‘Baby-Boomer’ generation. The average age of Australian academic teaching staff

(48 years), is closer to retirement age (65 years), when compared to the average age (39

years) of employed Australians from the general population (Australian Government

2008). In time, when the older ‘Baby-Boomer’ generation of academics retire, the

academic staff community will consist of predominantly younger Generation X and Y

employees. Thus, spirituality at work could have more of an impact in universities as

well as corporate businesses in the future, but this is yet to be tested empirically.

Even though academics reported average scores ranging from medium to high on the

three levels of Milliman et al.’s (2003) version of Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000)

spirituality at work measure, the results suggest that Ashmos and Duchon’s model of

spirituality at work may not yet be relevant to academic teaching staff. As spirituality at

work did not directly influence job stress, health or work-life conflict amongst

academics, this implies that Ashmos and Duchon’s spirituality at work model may have

more importance in relation to other employee or organisational outcome variables.

Alternatively, as previously discussed, the spirituality at work model may be more

important to academic’s job stress, health and work-life conflict in the future.

The results of the study indicate that Maslow’s (1943, 1954, 1968) theory can be

applied to the realm of academia in terms of dealing with job stress. Academics may

tend to focus on lower-order needs, such as keeping up with increasing work pressures

and work-related anxieties, rather than being able to seek achievement of higher-order

needs, for instance, seeking socially responsible, meaningful and purposeful projects.

In terms of dealing with work-life issues, academics are also likely forced to seek

achievement of lower-order needs, such as working enough hours to pay for living

expenses, but not so many that their personal lives suffer, rather than seeking to achieve

137

higher more spiritual needs. However, there was evidence to suggest that academics

also seek to achieve the higher-order need of social support from colleagues, in order to

aid work-life balance, but to a lesser extent than lower-order needs.

Also implied by this current study is that Lazarus and Folkman’s original (1984)

transactional model of stress and coping can be utilised in university HRM practice.

Academics appear to utilise cognitive (not spiritual) appraisal of stressful situations,

which has various impacts on their health. Academics seemed to be able to cope with

short-term job pressure stressors, probably through cognitive (not spiritual) appraisals of

the stressors and of their abilities and resources. Yet academics are exhibiting

difficulties in coping with long-term job threat stressors, which influence their health

detrimentally.

These results also indicated that Zedeck’s (1992) spillover theory can be applied to

Australian academics in terms of positive and negative work-to-personal life spillover.

Academic’s experiences of job threat stress and job pressure stress seem to flow into

their personal lives in a detrimental manner. Job stress directly influences academics’

ability to balance their personal and work lives, and directly leads to increased conflict

between their work and personal lives. In addition, the sense of community aspect of

academics’ work lives aided the balance between their personal and work lives. Based

on previous discussion the following section will outline the limitations of the current

study.

6.4 Limitations

There are some limitations of the study that should be noted in order to guide future

researchers. The previously used term ‘spirituality’ has often been associated with

religion (Astin & Astin 1999) and as such, might have limited the reliability of

participants responses, particularly if academics interpreted ‘spirituality at work’ as

‘religion’. It is important to clearly distinguish between religion and spirituality, as the

outcome and implications of studies investigating the influence of spirituality and/or

religion will vary depending on what definition of spirituality is used and its

interpretations (Elam 2000; Hebert et al. 2006; Sink 1999; Wills 2009).

138

As spirituality was claimed to be a subjective concept, the use of only quantitative data

collection methods and analysis could have limited the depth and quality in results of

the study. As job stress, well-being, ill-being, work-life conflict and work-life balance

were also all measured with quantitative methods, this could also have limited the

results. For example, qualitative methods have the advantage over quantitative methods

of collecting more rich sources of information (MacDonald & Friedman 2002). The

quantitative method was chosen to test empirically spirituality at work, which was

rarely utilised in previous research (Milliman et al. 2003). Self-report measures were

used for all the variables, which can create biases in the data (Dyer 2006). Participants

may answer with false information on purpose in order to appear socially desirable, or

to distort purposefully the data from reality (Murphy & Davidshofer 2001). Participants

may also respond randomly because they are unmotivated to complete the questionnaire

or uncomprehending of the survey items (Murphy & Davidshofer 2001).

The work-life balance and work-life conflict measures used in this current study were

reasonably simple in nature. These previously tested work-life measures were not

designed specifically to assess spillover between life domains, and the variables used

did not allow testing of different directions of work-life balance and conflict. These

direction-specific spillover variables and measures might have better indicated

influences of spirituality at work and job stress on both work-life balance and work-life

conflict. These measures were not utilised in the current study because they were

deemed to be too complex or demonstrated lower reliability than did Hill et al.’s (2001)

and O’Neil et al.’s (1986) measures. Considering the lack of previous research on the

area of work-life issues and spirituality, it was decided that a simple measure of work-

life balance and work-life conflict (with previously demonstrated good reliability)

would be used to explore whether the variables showed relationships with spirituality at

work initially. Perhaps altering one, or a combination, of these measures would have

confirmed influences of spirituality on work-life balance or work-life conflict in a

particular direction, such as life-to-work facilitation rather than work-to-life facilitation.

Another limitation of the study was the inability to test thoroughly the causal

relationships between spirituality at work and both work-life balance and work-life

conflict; and between spirituality at work and both well-being and ill-being, due to a

139

small sample size. The statistical method utilised did not allow for specific causal

relationships between variables to be tested, or several sets of relationships to be tested

simultaneously (as is found in the real world).

In terms of studying demographic differences, the group sample sizes also limited the

results of this study. In particular, differences of highest academic teaching level and

faculty were very limited by sample size. For these, no significance tests were

performed due to having fewer than two cases in each category, therefore limiting the

ability to generalise those particular results. Specifically, most participants were female

(more than three quarters) which may have influenced these results by not providing a

representative sample of the general population. Samples with equal number of males

and females should also be considered, in order to more thoroughly test gender

differences in work-life issues specifically.

The measure of well-being and ill-being used may have limited the study. In order to

preserve reliability of the measures, total well-being and ill-being measures were used

in the analyses rather than individual subscale scores (social, somatic, emotional,

cognitive and sexual well-being, and depression, anxiety and somatic ill-being). If any

direct effects or moderation effects involving these aspects of well-being and ill-being

were present, they may not have been evident due to the use of total well-being and ill-

being scores.

It should also be noted that the sample used in this study was specifically Australian

academic teaching staff, therefore caution should be taken when generalising the results

of this study to other occupations and countries. In addition, the sample used in this

particular study consisted predominantly of academics belonging to a single university

that was undergoing restructuring and significant change at the time of data collection.

The generalisation of the findings may be limited as participants were surveyed at a

single point in time. This could have limited the results of the study in that participants

were undergoing unusual circumstances at the time of data collection.

The results were also limited by the variables investigated. For example, spirituality at

work may be more important for other university academic outcomes, such as social

responsibility, community engagement, job satisfaction and student satisfaction. In

140

addition, organisational outcomes, such as productivity, absenteeism and turnover, are

other variables that may be influenced by spirituality at work. Based on these

limitations, suggestions for future research will be made in the following section.

6.5 Suggestions for Future Research

The previous research evidencing a link between job stress and health, and Lazarus and

Folkman’s (1984) original transactional model of stress were substantiated by the

results of the current study. However, the research evidencing direct and moderation

effects of spirituality at work on health, and Gall et al.’s (2005) theory of spiritual

appraisal were not supported by this current study. Past literature indicating direct and

moderation effects of spirituality at work on health, and work-life issues, Zedeck’s

(1992) spillover theory and transformational leadership were partially supported by the

results of the current study. The inconsistencies between previous research and theory

and the results of the current study could be attributed to the measures and methods

utilised; respondents sampled; and work-environment investigated. Based on the

findings and limitations of this study, suggestions for future research will be made.

Perhaps future research should endeavour to rename ‘spirituality at work’ as something

that will not be confused with religion. Terms such as personal authenticity, mission in

life, or sacredness of life (Astin & Astin 1999), the transcendent, complete soul and

interconnectedness (Hebert et al. 2006; Mitroff & Denton 1999b) as expressed through

work, may better explain what is meant by the term spirituality at work.

A multi-method approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods could be

considered in future studies, to avoid methodological biases (Dyer 2006). Self-report

methods should be maintained because spirituality is a highly personal construct and

more difficult to observe (see Inayatullah 2006; Mitroff & Denton 1999a; Sink 1999).

Yet, the use of behavioural observations, focus groups or interviews, in addition to self-

report methods might be more useful in gaining a less biased perspective (Murphy &

Davidshofer 2001). Using different methods (qualitative and quantitative) will give the

141

researcher comparable and complementary information about the participants’

spirituality at work (Murphy & Davidshofer 2001).

In addition to utilising appropriate variables that enable the study of spillover from both

personal-to-work life and work-to-personal life directions, specific positive and negative

spillover instruments could be considered for future research to investigate the positive

and negative influences of job stress and spirituality at work on work-life issues in more

depth. For example, the Work-family and Family-work Facilitation and Conflict Scale

(Wayne et al. 2004) measures four aspects of work-life balance and conflict: work-to-

family facilitation, work-to-family conflict, family-to-work facilitation and family-to-

work conflict. Using this type of measure may give researchers more information about

whether specific aspects of spirituality at work have influence on work-life balance or

conflict in different directions. Hanson’s (2006) Multidimensional Scale of perceived

Work–Family Positive Spillover could also be considered in order to measure particular

types of work-family positive spillover, such as behaviour-based positive spillover,

value-based positive spillover, and affective (mood or emotion based) positive spillover.

Furthermore, instead of measuring total well-being and ill-being scores, future research

should consider measuring aspects of well-being and ill-being. This will help identify if

any direct or moderating influences of spirituality at work on aspects of well-being and

ill-being exist, rather than on total well-being or ill-being. High-level stressors (e.g.,

heavy work loads) have been found to be linked to physical symptoms of ill-being

(Spector 2002). Therefore, measuring different types of job stress in future research

might also provide different results to that of the current study.

Future studies (that have adequate sample size) could also consider utilising structural

equation modelling in order to determine the causal association between spirituality at

work, work-life balance, job stress and well-being (Tabachnick & Fidell 2007).

Structural equation modelling could also be used better to test the theories used in the

study and investigate different models and relationships simultaneously. Astin and

Astin (1999) argued that the most common perceived obstacle to spiritual development

in these academics was time pressures. Therefore, it would be interesting to see

whether spirituality at work is more of an outcome variable, rather than a predictor

variable. Structural equation modelling could also help to understand better the

142

influences of spirituality at work on organisational variables. With appropriate sample

size, invariance testing could also be used to assess whether the influences of

spirituality at work on well-being and job stress varied between different types and

sized universities (Cunningham 2008). Furthermore, equal numbers of males and

females should be recruited in future research in order to investigate gender differences

in work-life issues specifically.

Previous studies often measured life stress, rather than work-related stress, and

individual spirituality, rather than work-place spirituality, which also could have

affected the results. Therefore, moderation analyses could also be conducted using

individual spirituality (non-work context) to determine whether individual spirituality is

more important than spirituality at work, in influencing job stress, health and work-life

issues. The spirituality at work measure used in this study was chosen because it did

not focus on the transcendent (personal) aspect of spirituality (Milliman et al. 2003).

Examining spirituality at work’s influence on life stress instead of job stress, may also

yield different results and help researchers understand the topic of spirituality in the

workplace.

Spirituality at work’s influence on other academic outcomes (e.g., social responsibility,

job satisfaction and student satisfaction) as well as organisational outcomes (e.g.,

productivity, absenteeism and turnover) should also be investigated. In the present

study the lack of spirituality at work’s influence on well-being and work-life issues was

not as expected. It may be that spirituality at work was not particularly important in

influencing health and work-life issues, but spirituality may be vital in influencing other

employee or organisational outcomes.

Future studies investigating demographic differences of academics specifically should

be powerful enough to detect group differences in the population if they exist. It would

be interesting to see whether demographic differences (such as highest academic

teaching level, academic duties, number of years employed in an academic position),

discipline, number of contact hours per week and type of university employed by, cause

significant differences in academics’ spirituality, health and work-life issues.

143

The inconsistencies between previous findings and the results of the current study could

well be attributed to the age of the respondents and other demographic variables, such

as religious orientation, culture and age. It might be useful to conduct spirituality at

work moderation analyses amongst student samples in order to determine whether

spirituality at work is more able to influence job stress, health and work-life issues in

younger academic samples. It is also important to perform these analyses amongst

young non-student samples, to see if the lack of influence spirituality at work has on job

stress, health and work-life issues can be attributed to higher academic institutions. As

the area of study is exploratory in nature, further research needs to be conducted before

potential moderation effects of spirituality at work on job stress and work-life issues and

health can be discarded. Further research is necessary to determine whether the same

relationships and results would occur in a wide range of academic samples (across

disciplines), diverse occupations and different countries, as Wills (2009) argues that it is

important to validate spirituality scales in different cultural contexts. This will also help

to determine whether the spirituality at work measure used in the present study is cross-

culturally generalisable.

It is most important to conduct research in universities during normal times of status

quo, rather than in times of restructure and significant change, as job stress will be

experienced differently. Perhaps under normal stressful circumstances, spirituality may

directly influence health, but in extraordinary stressful circumstances, it may not.

Further research could also investigate whether the inconsistencies between previous

research and the current study findings can be attributed to the nature of the work or job

characteristics (Hackman & Oldham 1975) and previous experience of individuals

(Calicchia & Graham 2006).

Finally, it would be interesting to investigate whether the new spirituality paradigm will

take hold of academia when university teaching staff is predominately from Generation

X and Y. Research conducted in the future, when the ‘Baby-Boomer’ academics have

retired, will verify whether this view is supported.

144

6.6 Conclusion

It is evident that globalisation influences corporate business and higher education

cultures. All employees feel the implications of global change directly or indirectly.

This study examined one outcome of global change, increased spirituality at work, and

its influence on academic teaching staff. The results of the study indicated that work-

unit spirituality had some beneficial influences on work-life balance. Yet, job stress had

the strongest influence on academic teaching staff outcomes, specifically decreased

well-being, increased ill-being, increased work-life conflict and decreased work-life

balance. Therefore, job stress should be a large concern for human resource managers

of organisations and universities alike.

Implementing spirituality at work into work-life balance interventions effectively

involves a transformation in university culture, which will ultimately lead to employee

benefits such as sense of community, collaboration and self-actualisation. Spirituality at

work is an integral part of humans’ search for meaning and purpose in life, but needs to

be recognised as such in higher education. The spirituality at work model presented

provides a non-denominational framework and a new paradigm for theory, business and

management practice. Incorporated into organisational culture, spirituality help can

bring about an inner employee transformation. However, it is clear that spirituality at

work and its influence on other employee outcomes need further investigation, as well

as investigating spirituality at work in diverse samples. Despite the evident need for

spirituality in universities, it seems that spirituality at work may be more important

currently in corporate businesses, but may become more influential for academia in the

future.

The study fulfilled its aims to address the deficiency in the existing spirituality at work

literature and to test empirically the moderating effects of spirituality at work’s

influence on (a) well-being and ill-being, and (b) work-life balance and work-life

conflict. The results of the study were important as they added to the existing

spirituality at work literature and went further than extrapolating individual spirituality

to the workplace and conceptual discussion. Moderation influences of spirituality had

not been previously investigated in a workplace-specific context. Therefore, the

145

moderation models investigated provided a stepping-stone for future research in the area

of spirituality at work and employee outcomes, particularly in the area of academia.

This study also investigated whether an existing spiritual appraisal model linking stress

and well-being, could be applied to a work context. Even though the moderation

models and spirituality appraisal model were not supported in this study, work-unit

spirituality at work did show direct influences on work-life balance. This shows

promise for future research investigating the positive influence of spirituality at work on

other organisational outcomes.

The results suggested that universities and businesses should consider implementing

stress management into well-being programs, and work-unit spirituality components

into their work-life balance programs, particularly in terms of tackling ongoing job

stress. However, in addition to providing wellness programs, it is recommended that in

order for interventions to be effective, organisations require a change in culture that

promotes health, flexibility and spirituality. It was cautioned that organisations should

implement these HRM programs with a long-term employee focussed strategy rather

than a short-term strategy focussed on improving the bottom line.

146

REFERENCES

Abbott, J & Di Cieri, H 2008, 'Influences on the provision of work-life benefits:

management and employee perspectives', Journal of Management & Organization, vol.

14, no. 3, pp. 303-322.

Abouserie, R 1996, 'Stress, coping strategies and job satisfaction in university academic

staff', Educational Psychology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 49-57.

Ackers, P & Preston, D 1997, 'Born again? The ethics and efficacy of the conversion

experience in contemporary management development', Journal of Management

Studies, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 677-701.

Aderman, M & Tecklenburg, K 1983, 'Effect of relaxation training on personal

adjustment and perceptions of organizational climate', Journal of Psychology:

Interdisciplinary and Applied, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 185-191.

Adonis, J 2007, 'Why managers should be like Madonna', The Age, 16th March 2007,

pp. 10-11.

Allen, TD, Herst, DEL, Bruck, CS & Sutton, M 2000, 'Consequences associated with

work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research', Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 278-308.

Allis, P & O'Driscoll, M 2008, 'Positive effects of nonwork-to-work facilitation on well-

being in work, family and personal domains', Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol.

23, no. 3, pp. 273-291.

Allport, GW & Ross, JM 1967, 'Personal religious orientation and prejudice', Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 432-443.

Anderson, L 2002, Identifying corporate pathfinders: History of the ACCI national

work and family awards, viewed 1st December 2008,

<http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2002/fm61/la.pdf>.

147

ANZ Inc. 2008, Australia and New Zealand banking group limited (ANZ) viewed 6th

February 2009, <http://www.anz.com.au/aus/about-anz/corporate-

responsibility/default.asp>.

Ardelt, M 2003, 'Effects of religion and purpose in life on elders' subjective well-being

and attitudes toward death', Journal of Religious Gerontology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 55-77.

Ashmos, DP & Duchon, D 2000, 'Spirituality at work: A conception and measure',

Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 134-145.

Astin, A & Astin, H 1999, Meaning and spirituality in the lives of college faculty: A

study of values, authenticity and stress, University of California, Los Angeles.

Aupers, S & Houtman, D 2006, 'Beyond the spiritual supermarket: The social and

public significance of new age spirituality', Journal of Contemporary Religion, vol. 21,

no. 2, pp. 201-222.

Australian Government 2008, Job outlook - university lecturers and tutors, viewed 28th

April 2009,

<http://joboutlook.gov.au/pages/occupation.aspx?search=alpha&tab=stats&cluster=&co

de=2421>.

Ballantyne, R, Bain, JD & Packer, J 1999, 'Researching university teaching in Australia:

themes and issues in academics' reflections', Studies in Higher Education, vol. 24, no. 2,

pp. 237-257.

Balmforth, K & Gardner, D 2006, 'Conflict and facilitation between work and family:

realizing the outcomes for organizations', New Zealand Journal of Psychology, vol. 35,

no. 2, pp. 69-76.

Barnes, LLB, Agago, MO & Coombs, WT 1998, 'Effects of job-related stress on faculty

intention to leave academia', Research in Higher Education, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 457-469.

Baron, RM & Kenny, DA 1986, 'The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations', Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

148

Bartlett, MS 1954, 'A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square

approximations', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 296-298.

Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G & Sharma, B 2008, Management: A pacific rim focus,

5th edn., McGraw Hill Australia Pty Limited, North Ryde.

Beaudoin, T 1998, 'Virtual faith: The Gen-X quest for meaning', Christian Science

Monitor, 6th August 1998, p. 11.

Becker, PL 2002, Spirituality in Australian organisations: employee attitudes and

impact on well being, DPsych thesis, Swinburne Graduate Research School, Swinburne

University of Technology, Australia.

Beliefnet Inc. 2007, Beliefnet: Inspiration. Spirituality. Faith, viewed 31st January

2008, <http://www.beliefnet.com/>.

Benson, PL, Scales, PC, Sesma, A & Roehlkepartain, EC 2005, 'Adolescent spirituality',

in K Anderson Moore and LH Lippman (eds), What do children need to flourish?

Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development, Springer, New

York.

Biberman, J 2003, 'How workplace spirituality becomes mainstreamed in a scholarly

organization', in RA Giacalone and CL Jurkiewicz (eds), Handbook of workplace

spirituality and organizational performance, ME Sharpe Inc., New York.

Biberman, J & Whitty, M 2007, At work: Spirituality matters, University of Scranton

Press, Pennsylvania.

Blake, H & Lloyd, S 2008, 'Influencing organisational change in the NHS: lessons

learned from workplace wellness initiatives in practice', Quality in Primary Care, vol.

16, no. 6, pp. 449-455.

Blix, AG, Cruise, R, Mitchell, BM & Blix, G 1994, 'Occupational stress among

university teachers', Educational Research, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 157-169.

Bond, FW & Bunce, D 2000, 'Mediators of change in emotion-focused and problem-

focused worksite stress management interventions', Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 156-163.

149

Boyle, MV & Healy, J 2003, 'Balancing mysterium and onus: Doing spiritual work

within an emotion-laden organizational context', Organization, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 351-

373.

Brantley, P, Earl, K, Catz, S & Bourdeaux, E 1997, 'Daily stress inventory', in CP

Zalaquett and RJ Wood (eds), Evaluating stress: A book of resources, Scarecrow

Education, Lanham, pp. 97-112.

Briggins 1996, 'Leadership in the balance', American Management association, vol. 85,

no. 2, p. 8.

Briggs, S 2009, 'Changing roles and competencies of academics', Active Learning in

Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 256-268.

Bronfenbrenner, U 1986, 'Ecology of the family as a context for human development:

Research perspectives', Developmental Psychology, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 723-742.

Brough, P, O'Driscoll, MP & Kalliath, TJ 2005, 'The ability of 'family friendly'

organizational resources to predict work-family conflict and job and family satisfaction',

Stress and Health (formerly Stress Medicine), vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 223-234.

Bruning, NS & Frew, DR 1985, 'The impact of various stress management training

strategies a longitudinal field experiment,' Academy of Management Proceedings,

Academy of Management, pp. 192-196.

Burack, EH 1999, 'Spirituality in the workplace', Journal of Organizational Change

Management, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 280-291.

Burke, RJ, Oberklaid, F & Burgess, Z 2003, 'Organizational values, work experiences,

and satisfactions among Australian psychologists', International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 123-135.

Butts, D 1999, 'Spirituality at work: an overview', Journal of Organizational Change


Byrne, U 2005, 'Work-life balance: Why are we talking about it at all?', Business

Information Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 53-59.

150

Calicchia, JA & Graham, LB 2006, 'Assessing the relationship between spirituality, life

stressors, and social resources: Buffers of stress in graduate students', North American

Journal of Psychology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 307-320.

Caproni, PJ 2004, 'Work/life balance: You can't get there from here', Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 208-218.

Cascio, T 1999, 'Religion and spirituality: Diversity issues for the future', Journal of

Multicultural Social Work, vol. 7, no. 3/4, pp. 129-145.

Cash, KC & Gray, GR 2000, 'A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality

in the workplace', Academy of Management Executive, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 124-134.

Cavanagh, GF 1999, 'Spirituality for managers: context and critique', Journal of

Organizational Change Management, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 186-199.

Cavanagh, GF & Bandsuch, MR 2002, 'Virtue as a benchmark for spirituality in

business', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 38, no. 1-2, pp. 109-117.

Centre for Spirituality at Work 2008, Centre for spirituality at work, viewed 27th July

2008, <http://www.spiritualityatwork.org>.

Churchman, D 2006, 'Institutional commitments, individual compromises: Identity-

related responses to comprimise in an Australian university', Journal of Higher

Education Policy and Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 3-15.

Clark, L, Leedy, S, McDonald, L, Muller, B, Lamb, C, Mendez, T, Kim, S &

Schonwetter, R 2007, 'Spirituality and job satisfaction among hospice Interdisciplinary

team members', Journal of Palliative Medicine, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1321-1328.

Clark, SC 2000, 'Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance',

Human Relations, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 747-770.

Clark, SC 2001, 'Work cultures and work/family balance', Journal of Vocational

Behavior, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 348-365.

Cleveland, M & Lynem, J 2005, Managing older workers sometimes awkward for

Generation X, Y bosses, viewed 13th May 2009, <http://www.sanluisobispo.com/>.

151

Coakes, S, J 2005, SPSS: Analysis without anguish, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd,

Milton.

Cohen, AB 2002, 'The importance of spirituality in well-being for Jews and Christians',

Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 287-310.

Cohen, J 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn.,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, USA.

Cohen, S, Kamarck, T & Mermelstein, R 1983, 'A global measure of perceived stress',

Journal of Health & Social Behavior, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 385-396.

Cornell, A 2007, 'Johnny Cash', Australian financial review, 23rd February 2007, pp.

30-36.

Corner, P 2009, 'Workplace spirituality and business ethics: Insights from an eastern

spiritual tradition', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 377-389.

Costa, P, T & McCrae, R, R 1992, Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-

factor inventory professional manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa FL.

Cunha, MPE, Rego, A & D'Oliveira, T 2006, 'Organizational spiritualities', Business &

Society, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 211-234.

Cunningham, E 2008, A practical guide to structural equation modelling using AmosTM

,

Statsline, Brunswick.

Dale, L 2004, 'Challenges for the older academic in balancing work and wellness',

Work, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 89-97.

De Cieri, H, Holmes, B, Abbott, J & Pettit, T 2005, 'Achievements and challenges for

work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations', International Journal of

Human Resource Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 90-103.

Deakin University 2009, Deakin chaplaincy: Spirituality, faith & meaning, viewed July

30th 2009 <http://www.deakin.edu.au/studentlife/chaplains/>.

Dehler, GE & Welsh, MA 1994, 'Spirituality and organizational transformation',

Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 17-26.

152

Dehler, GE & Welsh, MA 2003, 'Spirituality and the new workplace', in RA Giacalone

and CL Jurkiewicz (eds), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational

performance, M E Sharpe, Inc., New York.

Dent, EB, Higgins, ME & Wharff, DM 2005, 'Spirituality and leadership: An empirical

review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded assumptions', Leadership Quarterly,

vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 625-653.

Dessler, G, Griffiths, J & Lloyd-Walker, B 2007, HRM theory, skills, application., 3rd

edn., Pearson Education Australia, NSW.

DeVellis, RF 2003, Scale development: Theory and application, 2nd edn., Sage

Publications Inc., California.

Diener, E, Emmons, RA, Larsen, RJ & Griffin, S 1985, 'The Satisfaction With Life

Scale', Journal of Personality Assessment, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 71-75.

Diener, E & Lucas, RE 1999, 'Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress',

Psychological Bulletin, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 276-302.

Doyle, C & Hind, P 1998, 'Occupational stress, burnout and job status in female

academics', Gender, Work & Organization, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 67-82.

DuBrin, A, Dalglish, C & Miller, P 2006, Leadership, 2nd edn., John Wiley & Sons

Australia, Ltd, Milton.

Duchon, D & Plowman, DA 2005, 'Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit

performance', Leadership Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 807-833.

Duffy, RD 2006, 'Spirituality, religion, and career development: Current status and

future directions', Career Development Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 52-63.

Dyer, C 2006, Research in psychology: A practical guide to methods and statistics,

Blackwell Publishing, Singapore.

Edmondson, KA, Lawler, KA, Jobe, RL, Younger, JW, Piferi, RL & Jones, WH 2005,

'Spirituality predicts health and cardiovascular responses to stress in young adult

women', Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 161-171.

153

Edwards, JR & Rothbard, NP 2000, 'Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying

the relationship between work and family constructs', Academy of Management Review,

vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 178-199.

Elam, D 2000, An exploration of the relationship between spirituality and emotional

well-being, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at

Carbondale, United States, Illinois.

Elfering, A, Grebner, S, Semmer, NK, Kaiser-Freiburghaus, D, Ponte, SL & Witschi, I

2005, 'Chronic job stressors and job control: Effects on event-related coping success and

well-being', Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, vol. 78, no. 2, pp.

237-252.

Ellison, CG 1991, 'Religious involvement and subjective well-being', Journal of Health

and Social Behavior, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 80-99.

Ellison, CG, Boardman, JD, Williams, DR & Jackson, JS 2001, 'Religious involvement,

stress, and mental health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit area study', Social Forces, vol.

80, no. 1, pp. 215-249.

Ellison, CW 1983, 'Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement', Journal

of Psychology and Theology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 80-99.

Emmons, RA 2000a, 'Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the

psychology of ultimate concern', International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,

vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3-26.

Emmons, RA 2000b, 'Spirituality and intelligence: Problems and prospects',

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 57-64.

Engebretson, K 2003, 'Young people, culture and spirituality: some implications for

ministry', Religious Education, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 5-24.

Fabricatore, AN, Handal, PJ & Fenzel, LM 2000, 'Personal spirituality as a moderator

of the relationship between stressors and subjective well-being', Journal of Psychology

& Theology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 221-228.

154

Fallon, B & Richardson, R 2003, 'Organisational citizenship behaviour in a telco: The

role of organisational justice, organisational rewards, and perceived organisational

support', Australian Journal of Psychology, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 122-123.

Fisher, JW 1999a, 'Developing a spiritual health and life-orientation measure for

secondary school students,,' Proceedings of University of Ballarat Annual Research

Conference, pp. 57–63.

Francis, G 2002, Factor analysis, Swinburne University of Technology, Lilydale.

Frazier, PA, Tix, AP & Barron, KE 2004, 'Testing moderator and mediator effects in

counseling psychology research', Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp.

115-134.

Freshman, B 1999, 'An exploratory analysis of definitions and applications of

spirituality in the workplace', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 12,

no. 4, pp. 318-327.

Frone, MR 2003, 'Work-family balance', in JC Quick and LE Tetrick (eds), Handbook

of Occupational Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington,

DC.

Fry, LW 2003, 'Toward a theory of spiritual leadership', Leadership Quarterly, vol. 14,

no. 6, pp. 693-727.

Gall, TL, Charbonneau, C, Clarke, NH, Grant, K, Joseph, A & Shouldice, L 2005,

'Understanding the nature and role of spirituality in relation to coping and health: A

conceptual framework', Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, vol. 46, no. 2,

pp. 88-104.

Gallos, JV (ed.) 2006, Organizational development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Gardner, H 2000, 'A case against spiritual intelligence', International Journal for the

Psychology of Religion, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 27-34.

Geroy, GD 2005, 'Preparing students for spirituality in the workplace', New Directions

for Teaching & Learning, vol. 1, no. 104, pp. 67-74.

155

Giacalone, RA & Jurkiewicz, CL 2003a, Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance, M E Sharpe, Inc., New York.

Giacalone, RA & Jurkiewicz, CL 2003b, 'Toward a science of workplace spirituality', in

RA Giacalone and CL Jurkiewicz (eds), Handbook of workplace spirituality and

organizational performance, M E Sharpe, Inc., New York, pp. 3-28.

Gibbons, P 2000, 'Spirituality at work: Definitions, measures, assumptions, and validity

claims,' Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy of Management, pp. 1-2.

Gillespie, N, Walsh, M, Winefield, AH, Dua, J & Stough, C 2001, 'Occupational stress

in universities: staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress',

Work & Stress, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 53-72.

Gmelch, WH, Wilke, PK & Lovrich, NP 1986, 'Dimensions of stress among university

faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study', Research in Higher Education,

vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 266-286.

Goddard, R, O'Brien, P & Goddard, M 2006, 'Work environment predictors of

beginning teacher burnout', British Educational Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 6, pp.

857-874.

Graham, S, Furr, S, Flowers, C & Burke, MT 2001, 'Religion and spirituality in coping

with stress', Counseling & Values, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 2-13.

Greenhaus, JH & Beutell, NJ 1985, 'Sources of conflict between work and family roles',

Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 76-88.

Guillermo, OM 2008, Effects of work-family conflict on organizational citizenship

behavior, Ph.D thesis, School of Business, Tulane University, Louisiana.

Gulielmi, RS & Tatrow, K 1998, 'Occupational stress, burnout, and health in teachers:

A methodological and theoretical analysis', Review of Educational Research, vol. 68,

no. 1, pp. 61-99.

Hackman, JR & Oldham, GR 1975, 'Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey',

Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 159-170.

156

Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE & Tatham, RL 2005, Multivariate data

analysis, 6th edn., Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Hanson, GC, Hammer, LB & Colton, CL 2006, 'Development and validation of a

multidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover', Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 249-265.

Hardie, E, Kashima, ES & Pridmore, P 2005, 'The influence of relational, individual and

collective self-Aspects on stress, uplifts and health', Self and Identity, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.

1-24.

Harrington, WJ, Preziosi, RC & Gooden, DJ 2002, 'Perceptions of workplace

spirituality among professionals and executives', Employee Responsibilities & Rights

Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 155-163.

Harris, H 2001, 'Spirituality at work: Some Australian observations', Business &

Professional ethics journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 45-58.

Harrison, MO, Koenig, HG, Hays, JC, Eme-Akwari, AG & Pargament, KI 2001, 'The

epidemiology of religious coping: a review of recent literature', International Review of

Psychiatry, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 86-93.

Hartsfield, MK 2003, The internal dynamics of transformational leadership: Effects of

spirituality, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy, Ph.D. thesis, School of

Leadership Studies, Regent University, US.

Hatch, RL, Burg, MA, Naberhaus, DS & Hellmich, LK 1998, 'The Spiritual

Involvement and Beliefs Scale: development and testing of a new instrument', Journal

of Family Practice, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 476-486.

Hawley, J 1993, Reawakening the spirit in work: The power of dharmic management,

Berret-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco CA.

Hayes, CT 2007, 'Optimism, stress, life satisfaction, and job burnout in restaurant

managers', The Journal of Psychology, vol. 141, no. 6, pp. 565-579.

157

Hayman, J 2005, 'Psychometric assessment of an instrument sesigned to measure work

life balance,' Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, vol. 13, no. 1,

pp. 85-91.

Hebert, RS, Weinstein, E, Martire, LM & Schulz, R 2006, 'Religion, spirituality and the

well-being of informal caregivers: A review, critique, and research prospectus', Aging &

Mental Health, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 497-520.

Helfat, C 2002, 'Work-life issues in academia and business: The current state of affairs',

Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 329-331.

Herzberg, F 1966, Work and the nature of man, The World Publishing Company, Ohio.

Hicks, DA 2003, Religion and the workplace: Pluralism spirituality leadership,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Higgins, C, Duxbury, L & Lee, C 1994, 'Impact of life-cycle stage and gender on the

ability to balance work and family responsibilities', Family Relations, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.

144-150.

Hill, EJ 2005, 'Work-family facilitation and conflict, working fathers and mothers,

work-family stressors and support', Journal of Family Issues, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 793-

819.

Hill, EJ, Hawkins, AJ, Ferris, M & Weitzman, M 2001, 'Finding an extra day a week:

The positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance',

Family Relations, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 49-54.

Hill, EJ, Miller, BC, Weiner, SP & Colihan, J 1998, 'Influences of the virtual office on

aspects of work and work/life balance', Personnel Psychology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 667-

683.

Hillier, D, Fewell, F, Cann, W & Shephard, V 2005, 'Wellness at work: Enhancing the

quality of our working lives', International Review of Psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 419-

431.

Hitchens, C 2000, 'God at work', Free inquiry, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 5-6.

158

Hobsor, CJ, Delunas, L & Kesic, D 2001, 'Compelling evidence of the need for

corporate work/life balance initiatives: Results from a national survey of stressful life-

events', Journal of Employment Counseling, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 38-44.

Hocking, M 2006, A Healing Initiation: recognise the healer within, Brolga Publishing

Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Hodge, DR 2003, 'The challenge of spiritual diversity: Can social work facilitate an

inclusive environment?', Families in Society, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 348-358.

Hofstede, G 1980, 'Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories

apply abroad?', Organizational Dynamics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 42-63.

Holt, RR (ed.) 1993, Occupational stress, Free Press, New York.

Hong, L 2008, 'College stress and psychological well-being: self-transcendence

meaning of life as a moderator', College Student Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 531-541.

Houston, D, Meyer, LH & Paewai, S 2006, 'Academic staff workloads and job

satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe', Journal of Higher Education Policy

and Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 17-30.

Howard, S 2002, 'A spiritual perspective on learning in the workplace', Journal of

Managerial Psychology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 230-242.

Hutchinson, I 2005, Taking the risk to be an employer of choice, viewed 1st December

2008, <www.nsw.ipaa.org.au/00_pdfs/JudeMunroPAT5.pdf>.

Inayatullah, S 2006, Spirituality as the fourth bottom line, viewed 2nd April 2009,

<http://www.metafuture.org/Articles/spirituality_bottom_line.htm>.

Ingersoll, R, Elliott 2003, 'Spiritual wellness in the workplace', in RA Giacalone and CL

Jurkiewicz (eds), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance,

M E Sharpe, Inc., New York.

International Center for Spirit at Work 2007, International Center for Spirit at Work,

viewed 18th June 2009 <http://www.spiritatwork.org/>.

159

Jacobs, JA & Winslow, SE 2004, 'Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family

demands', The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.

596, no. 1, pp. 104-129.

Jamal, M 2005, 'Personal and organizational outcomes related to job stress and type A

behavior: A study of Canadian and Chinese employees', Stress and Health (formerly

Stress Medicine), vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 129-137.

Kaiser, HF 1970, 'A second generation little jiffy', Psychometrika, vol. 35, no. 4, pp.

401-415.

Kaiser, HF 1974, 'An index of factorial simplicity', Psychometrika, vol. 39, no. 1, pp.

31-36.

Kaplan, RM & Saccuzzo, DP 2005, Psychological testing: Principles, applications and

issues, 6th edn., Wadsworth, USA.

Karlsen, E, Dybdahl, R & Vitterso, J 2006, 'The possible benefits of difficulty: How

stress can increase and decrease subjective well-being', Scandinavian Journal of


Kass, JD, Friedman, R, Leserman, J, Zuttermeister, PC & Benson, H 1991, 'Health

outcomes and a new index of spiritual experience', Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 203-211.

Kinjerski, VM & Skrypnek, BJ 2004, 'Defining spirit at work: Finding common

ground', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 26-42.

Kinjerski, VM & Skrypnek, BJ 2006, 'Creating organizational conditions that foster

employee spirit at work', Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 27, no.

4, pp. 280-295.

Kinman, G & Jones, F 2003, ''Running up the down escalator': Stressors and strains in

UK academics', Quality in Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 21-38.

Kinman, G & Jones, F 2008, 'A life beyond work? Job demands, work-life balance, and

wellbeing in UK academics', Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,

vol. 17, no. 1-2, pp. 41-60.

160

Kokkinos, CM 2007, 'Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers',

The British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 229-243.

Konz, GNP & Francis, XR 1999, 'Maintaining an organizational spirituality: No easy

task', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 200-210.

Korabik, K, Lero, DS & Whitehead, DL (eds), 2008, Handbook of work-family

integration: Research, theory, and best practices, Elsevier Inc., London, UK.

Kramar, R 1998, 'Flexibility in Australia: Implications for employees and managers',

Employee Relations, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 453-460.

Krishnan, VR 2008, 'The impact of transformational leadership on followers' duty

orientation and spirituality', Journal of Human Values, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 11-22.

Laabs, JJ 1995, 'Balancing spirituality and work', Personnel Journal, vol. 74, no. 9, pp.

60-76.

Landsbergis, PA 1988, 'Occupational stress among health care workers: A test of the job

demands-control model', Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 217-239.

Lazarus, RS & Folkman, S 1984, Stress, appraisal, and coping, Springer Publishing

Company Inc., New York.

Lazarus, RS & Launier, R 1978, 'Stress-related transactions between person and

environment.', in LA Pervin and M Lewis (eds), Perspectives in interactional

psychology, Plenum, New York, pp. 287-327.

Lazuras, L 2006, 'Occupational stress, negative affectivity and physical health in special

and general education teachers in Greece', British Journal of Special Education, vol. 33,

no. 4, pp. 204-209.

Levere, J, L. 1995, 'Business Travel; Corporations planning executive retreats have

some unusual options to pick from', New York Times, 27th September 1995, p. 9.

Lingard, H, Brown, K, Bradley, L, Bailey, C & Townsend, K 2007, 'Improving

employees’ work-life balance in the construction industry: Project alliance case study',

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 133, no. 10, pp. 807-815.

161

Love, PED, Irani, Z, Standing, C & Themistocleous, M 2007, 'Influence of job

demands, job control and social support on information systems professionals'

psychological well-being', International Journal of Manpower, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 513-

528.

Lustyk, MKB, Beam, CR, Miller, AC & Olson, KC 2006, 'Relationships among

perceived stress, premenstrual symptomatology and spiritual well-being in women',

Journal of Psychology & Theology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 311-317.

MacDonald, DA & Friedman, HL 2002, 'Assessment of humanistic, transpersonal, and

spiritual constructs: State of the science', Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol. 42, no.

4, pp. 102-125.

MacFie, B, Amatekpor, B & Kapalka, GM 2005, 'Spirituality and stress tolerance

among graduate students in counseling,' Annual Conference of the New Jersey

Counseling Association, pp. 61-74.

MacLachlan, M, McAuliffe, E, Page, RC, Altschul, DB & Tabony, R 1999, 'The effect

of four years of participation in a Tibetan Buddhist retreat on perceptions of

physiological and psychological well-being', Counseling & Values, vol. 43, no. 3, pp.

224-233.

Marler, PL & Hadaway, CK 2002, '“Being religious” or “being spiritual” in America: A

zero-sum proposition?', Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 41, no. 2, pp.

289-300.

Marques, J 2005, 'HR's crucial role in the establishment of spirituality in the workplace',

Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 27-31.

Marques, J, Dhiman, S & King, R 2005, 'Spirituality in the workplace: Developing an

integral model and a comprehensive definition', Journal of American Academy of

Business, Cambridge, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 81-91.

Marques, JF 2006, 'Removing the blinders: A phenomenological study of U.S. based

MBA students' perception of spirituality in the workplace', Journal of American

Academy of Business, Cambridge, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 55-61.

162

Maslow, A, H 1943, 'A theory of human motivation', Psychological Review, vol. 50, no.

4, pp. 370-396.

Maslow, A, H 1954, Motivation and personality, 2nd edn., Harper & Row, Publishers,

Inc., New York.

Maslow, A, H 1968, Toward a psychology of being, 2nd edn., D. Van Nostrand

Company, New York.

McCormick, DW 1994, 'Spirituality and management', Journal of Managerial


McGreal, R & Joseph, S 1993, 'The Depression-Happiness Scale', Psychological

Reports, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 1279-1282.

Mealiea, L & Baltazar, R 2005, 'A strategic guide for building effective teams', Public

Personnel Management, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 141-160.

Miller, JE & Hollenshead, C 2005, 'Gender, family, and flexibility - why they're

important in the academic workplace', Change, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 58-62.

Milliman, J, Czaplewski, AJ & Ferguson, J 2003, 'Workplace spirituality and employee

work attitudes', Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 426-

447.

Milliman, J, Ferguson, J, Trickett, D & Condemi, B 1999, 'Spirit and community at

Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual values-based model', Journal of


Mitroff, II & Denton, EA 1999a, A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at

spirituality, religion and values in the workplace, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San

Francisco.

Mitroff, II & Denton, EA 1999b, 'A study of spirituality in the workplace', MIT Sloan

Management Review, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 83-92.

Mohr, AT 2007, 'Role conflict, general manager job satisfaction and stress and the

performance of IJVs', European management journal, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 25-35.

163

Monash University 2009, Employee Assistance program (staff counselling) and

supervisor assist service, viewed 16th April 2009,

<http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/workplace-policy/staff-wellbeing/employee-

assistance/>.

Moore, F 2007, 'Work-life balance: contrasting managers and workers in an MNC',

Employee Relations, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 385-399.

Morris, ZA 2008, Mediating effects of social support and personal mastery on the

relationship between early parental support and health experiences in adults over 50,

Master of Psychology thesis, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton.

Mostert, F, Rothmann, S, Mostert, K & Nell, K 2008, 'Outcomes of occupational stress

in a higher education institution', Southern African Business Review, vol. 12, no. 3, pp.

102-126.

Multicultural Mental Health Australia 2008, International conference on children's

spirituality, viewed 18th June 2009 <http://www.mmha.org.au/find/training-and-

events/8th-international-conference-on-children-s-spirituality/>.

Mummery, K, Schofield, G & Caperchione, C 2004, 'Physical activity dose-response

effects on mental health status in older adults', Australian & New Zealand Journal of

Public Health, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 188-192.

Murphy, K, R & Davidshofer, C, O 2001, Psychological testing: Principles and

applications, 5th edn., Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Myers, DG & Diener, E 1995, 'Who is happy?', Psychological Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.

10-19.

Narayanswamy, R 2008, 'Why is spirituality integral to management education? My

experience of integrating management and spirituality', Journal of Human Values, vol.

14, no. 2, pp. 115-128.

Neal, JA, Bergman-Lichtenstein, BMB & Banner, D 1999, 'Spiritual perspectives on

individual, organizational and societal transformation', Journal of organizational

change management, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 175-185.

164

Neck, CP & Milliman, JF 1994, 'Thought self-leadership', Journal of Managerial


Netemeyer, RG, Boles, JS & McMurrian, R 1996, 'Development and validation of

work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales', Journal of Applied Psychology,

vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 400-410.

Noblet, A, Teo, STT, McWilliams, J & Rodwell, JJ 2005, 'Which work characteristics

predict employee outcomes for the public-sector employee? An examination of generic

and occupation-specific characteristics', International Journal of Human Resource


O'Laughlin, E & Bischoff, L 2005, 'Balancing parenthood and academia: Work/family

stress as influenced by gender and tenure status', Journal of Family Issues, vol. 26, no.

1, pp. 79-106.

O'Neil, JM, Helms, BJ & Gable, RK 1986, 'Gender-Role Conflict Scale: College men's

fear of femininity', Sex Roles, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 335-350.

Oman, D, Hedberg, J & Thoresen, CE 2006, 'Passage meditation reduces perceived

stress in health professionals: A randomized, controlled trial', Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 714-719.

Pallant, J 2001, SPSS survival manual, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.

Palliser, CR, Firth, HM, Feyer, AM & Paulin, SM 2005, 'Musculoskeletal discomfort

and work-related stress in New Zealand dentists', Work & Stress, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 351-

359.

Palmer, S & Dryden, W 1994, 'Stress management: Approaches and interventions',

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 5-12.

Paloutzian, R & Ellison, C 1982, 'Spiritual well-being and quality of life', in L Peplau

and D Perlman (eds), Loneliness. Sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy,

The Guilford Press, New York.

Pandey, A, Gupta, R & Arora, A 2008, 'Spiritual climate of business organizations and

its impact on customers' experience', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. Online, pp. 1-20.

165

Park, CL 2005, 'Religion as a meaning-making framework in coping with life stress',

Journal of Social Issues, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 707-729.

Parkes, LP & Langford, PH 2008, 'Work-life balance or work-life alignment? A test of

the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in

organisations', Journal of Management & Organization, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 267-284.

Patterson, B 2007, 'Then A-Z or 'generation Y': They grew up with mobile phones, the

internet, pay TV, bottled water, laptops and Eminem', Sunday Herald Sun, pp. 86-89.

Pava, M 2007, 'Spirituality in (and out) of the classroom: A pragmatic approach',

Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 287-299.

Pawar, B 2009, 'Workplace spirituality facilitation: A comprehensive model', Journal of

Business Ethics, vol. Online, pp. 1-12.

Perrone, KM, Webb, LK, Wright, SL, Jackson, ZV & Ksiazak, TM 2006, 'Relationship

of spirituality to work and family roles and life satisfaction among gifted adults',

Journal of Mental Health Counseling, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 253-268.

Peterman, AH, Fitchett, G, Brady, MJ, Hernandez, L & Cella, D 2002, 'Measuring

spiritual well-being in people with cancer: The functional assessment of chronic illness

therapy—spiritual well-being scale (FACIT-Sp)', Annals of Behavioral Medicine, vol.

24, no. 1, pp. 49-58.

Pfeffer, J 2003, 'Management practices that sustain values', in RA Giacalone and CL

Jurkiewicz (eds), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance,

M E Sharpe, Inc., New York.

Piedmont, RL 1999, 'Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual

transcendence and the five-factor model', Journal of Personality, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 985-

1013.

Pocock, B 2005, 'Work-life ‘balance’ in Australia: Limited progress, dim prospects',

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 198-209.

Powers, DV, Cramer, RJ & Grubka, JM 2007, 'Spirituality, life stress and affective

well-being', Journal of Psychology & Theology, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 235-243.

166

Prescott, J, Shaw, M & Allikas, D 2008, 'Work-life balance: Making flextime work',

Compensation & Benefits for Law Offices, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 2-5.

Quick, JD, Henley, AB & Quick, JC 2004, 'The balancing act: At work and at home',

Organizational Dynamics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 426-438.

Quinlan, M 2007, 'Organisational restructuring/downsizing, OHS regulation and worker

health and wellbeing', International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, vol. 30, no. 4, pp.

385-399.

Reiter, N 2007, 'Work life balance: What do you mean?: The ethical ideology

underpinning appropriate application', Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 43,

no. 2, pp. 273-294.

Richardson, KM & Rothstein, HR 2008, 'Effects of occupational stress management

intervention programs: A meta-analysis', Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 69-93.

Riddle, D 2001, Developing and testing a model of whole-life self-management and

self-management coaching, Ph.D. thesis, School of Social and Behavioural Sciences,

Swinburne University of Technology.

Rochfort, S 2007, 'Spirits are moving Murdoch', Sydney Morning Herald, p. 49.

Rothbard, NP 2001, 'Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and

family roles', Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 655-684.

Rothman, J 2009, 'Spirituality: What we can teach and how we can teach it', Journal of

Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 161-184.

Ryan, K & Fiorito, B 2003, 'Means-end spirituality questionnaire: reliability, validity

and relationship to psychological well-being', Review of Religious Research, vol. 45, no.

2, pp. 130-154.

Ryff, C 1989, 'Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 57, no. 6,

pp. 1069-1081.

167

Saltzstein, AL, Ting, Y & Saltzstein, GH 2001, 'Work-family balance and job

satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government

employees', Public Administration Review, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 452-467.

Sass, JS 2000, 'Characterizing organizational spirituality: an organizational

communication culture approach', Communication Studies, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 195-217.

Schuler, RS 1982, 'An integrative transactional process model of stress in

organizations', Journal of Occupational Behavior, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5-19.

Schwarzer, R & Hallum, S 2008, 'Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job

stress and burnout', Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 57, no. 1, pp.

152-171.

Seaward, BL 2000, 'Stress and human spirituality 2000: At the cross roads of physics

and metaphysics', Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 241-

246.

Seidlitz, L, Abernethy, AD, Duberstein, PR, Evinger, JS, Chang, TH & Lewis, BL

2002, 'Development of the Spiritual Transcendence Index', Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 439-453.

Sexton, C 1994, 'Self-managed work teams: TQM technology at the employee level',

Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 45-52.

Shaw, JB & Riskind, JH 1983, 'Predicting job stress using data from the Position

Analysis Questionnaire', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 253-261.

Shellenberger, S 2000, 'More relaxed boomers, fewer workplace frills and other job

trends', The Wall street Journal, vol. 236, 27th December 2000, p. B1.

Shields, M 2006, 'Stress and depression in the employed population', Health Reports,

vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 11-29.

Singhal, M 2005, 'Towards understand and applying 'Spirituality at Work':

Development of a conceptual framework,,' Working Paper Series, Indian Institute of

Management, pp. 1-26.

168

Sink, JR 1999, Religiousness, spirituality, and satisfaction with life: A structural model

of subjective well-being and optimal adult development, Ph.D. thesis, The Fielding

Institute, Santa Barbara, California.

Siying, W, Wei, Z, Zhiming, W, Mianzhen, W & Yajia, L 2007, 'Relationship between

burnout and occupational stress among nurses in China', Journal of Advanced Nursing,

vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 233-239.

Slattery, L 2007, 'Worn-out managers seek spiritual guide', The Australian Financial

Review, 13 August 2007, p. 33.

Spector, PE 2002, 'Employee control and occupational stress', Current Directions in

Psychological Science, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 133-136.

Spirituality and Health 2009, Spirituality and health conference: Integrating spirituality

in the practice of health care, viewed 18th June 2009

<http://www.spiritualityhealth.org.au>.

Stanton, JM, Balzer, WK, Smith, PC, Parra, LF & Ironson, G 2001, 'A general measure

of work stress: The Stress in General Scale', Educational and Psychological

Measurement, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 866-888.

Steingard, DS 2005, 'Spiritually-informed management theory: Toward profound

possibilities for inquiry and transformation', Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 14,

no. 3, pp. 227-241.

Stone, RJ 2008, Managing human resources, 2nd edn., John Wiley & Sons Australia

Ltd, Brisbane.

Sullivan, SE & Mainiero, L 2008, 'Using the kaleidoscope career model to understand

the changing patterns of women's careers: Designing HRD programs that attract and

retain women', Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 32-49.

Swinburne University of Technology 2009, Employee assistance program, viewed 16th

April 2009, <http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/hr/eap.htm>.

Tabachnick, BG & Fidell, LS 2007, Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn., Pearson

Education, Inc., USA.

169

Taylor, F 1985, The principles of scientific management, Hive, Easton.

Telstra Corporation Ltd. 2008, About Telstra, viewed 3rd December 2008,

<http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/csr/index.cfm>.

The Christian Science Publishing Society 2008, Christian science publishing society:

Spirituality.com, viewed 27th July 2008, <http://www.spirituality.com/>.

The Institute for Management Excellence 2008, The institute for management

excellence, viewed 27th November 2008, <http://www.itstime.com/>.

The International Business & Leadership Symposium 2009, The international business

and leadership symposium, viewed 18th June 2009 <http://www.ccsforum.org/>.

The SLaM Network 2007, The Spirituality, Leadership and Management (SLaM)

Network viewed 6th August 2008, <http://www.slam.net.au/>.

Tischler, L 1999, 'The growing interest in spirituality in business', Journal of


Tischler, L, Biberman, J & McKeage, R 2002, 'Linking emotional intelligence,

spirituality and workplace performance: Definitions, models and ideas for research',

Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 203-218.

Tourish, D & Pinnington, A 2002, 'Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and

the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace?', Human Relations, vol.

55, no. 2, pp. 147-172.

Tytherleigh, MY 2007, 'Gender, health and stress in English university staff - Exposure

or vulnerability?', Applied Psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 267-287.

Tytherleigh, MY, Webb, C, Cooper, CL & Ricketts, C 2005, 'Occupational stress in UK

higher education institutions: A comparative study of all staff categories', Higher

Education Research & Development, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 41-61.

Wallace, JE 2005, 'Job stress, depression and work-to-family conflict: a test of the strain

and buffer hypotheses', Relations industrielles, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 510-539.

170

Waltman, J & Sullivan, B 2007, 'Creating and supporting a flexible work-life

environment for faculty and staff', Effective Practices for Academic Leaders, vol. 2, no.

2, pp. 1-16.

Wang, JL 2006, 'Perceived work stress, imbalance between work and family/personal

lives, and mental disorders', Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, vol. 41, no.

7, pp. 541-548.

Warr, P, Cook, J & Wall, T 1979, 'Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes

and aspects of psychological well-being', Journal of Occupational Psychology, vol. 52,

no. 2, pp. 129-148.

Wayne, JH, Musisca, N & Fleeson, W 2004, 'Considering the role of personality in the

work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and

facilitation', Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 64, no. 1, p. 108.

Weber, M 1947, The theory of social and economic organization, Oxford University

Press, New York.

Webster, S 2004, 'An existential framework of spirituality', International Journal of

Children's Spirituality, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7-19.

Weston, S 2002, 'Faith at work', New Zealand Management, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 28-30.

Westpac Banking Corporation 2009, Westpac Banking Corporation, viewed 6th

February 2009,

<http://www.westpac.com.au/internet/publish.nsf/Content/WI+Corporate+responsibility

>.

Westwood, RI & Posner, BZ 1997, 'Managerial values across cultures: Australia, Hong

Kong and the United States', Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp.

31-66.

Wilding, C, Muir-Cochrane, E & May, E 2006, 'Treading lightly: Spirituality issues in

mental health nursing', International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, vol. 15, no. 2,

pp. 144-152.

171

Wills, E 2009, 'Spirituality and subjective well-being: Evidences for a new domain in

the personal well-being index', Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 49-69.

Winefield, AH, Gillespie, N, Stough, C, Dua, J, Hapuarachchi, J & Boyd, C 2003,

'Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey',

International Journal of Stress Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 51-63.

Winefield, AH & Jarrett, R 2001, 'Occupational stress in university staff', International

Journal of Stress Management, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 285-298.

Wong, J & Lin, J 2007, 'The role of job control and job support in adjusting service

employee's work-to-leisure conflict', Tourism Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 726-735.

Wong, S 2007, 'The relationship between task interdependency and role stress: A revisit

of the job demands-control model', The Journal of Management Studies, vol. 44, no. 2,

pp. 20-303.

Wood, G 2000, 'A cross cultural comparison of the contents of codes of ethics: USA,

Canada and Australia', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 287-298.

Youngmee, K & Seidlitz, L 2002, 'Spirituality moderates the effect of stress on

emotional and physical adjustment', Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 32, no.

8, pp. 1377-1390.

Zajonc, A 2003, 'Spirituality in higher education', Liberal Education, vol. 89, no. 1, pp.

50-58.

Zalaquett, CP & Wood, RJ (eds), 1997, Evaluating stress: A book of resources,

Scarecrow Press Inc., Maryland.

Zalaquett, CP & Wood, RJ (eds), 1998, Evaluating stress: A book of resources volume

2, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Maryland.

Zedeck, S 1992, 'Exploring the domain of work and family concerns', in S Zedeck (ed.)

Work, Families and Organizations, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

172

Zellars, KL & Perrewe', PL 2003, 'The role of spirituality in occupational stress and

well-being', in RA Giacalone and CL Jurkiewicz (eds), Handbook of workplace

spirituality and organizational performance, M E Sharpe, Inc., New York.

Zinnbauer, BJ, Pargament, KI, Cole, B, Rye, MS, Butfer, EM, Belavich, TG, Hipp, KM,

Scott, AB & Kadar, JL 1997, 'Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy', Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 549-564.

173

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Questionnaire

Consent Information Statement

Project title: Spirituality in Australian universities: relationship with work-life

balance, job stress and well-being amongst academic staff.

Investigator: Amanda S. Bell, Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of Higher Education, Lilydale.

You are invited to participate in this research project. Please see below for a description of the study and how you may be a part of it. What is the project about? Spirituality at work is not about religion. It involves the individual search for ultimate purpose in life, building a strong connection with work colleagues and to have congruity between ones core beliefs and the values of the organisation in which one works (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Ashmos and Duchon (2000) suggest that spirituality exists on three levels of work, the individual, work unit and organisational levels. These are defined as having a meaningful job, a sense of community at work and having values that are aligned with the organisation in which the individual works. The internal expression of being, sense of place, interconnectedness and meaning seeking (Geroy, 2005) is encouraged in individual employees. Why is the study being conducted and why are academic staff being approached? This project is valuable because little research has been conducted in the area of Spirituality at work in Australia. Much research has been conducted overseas on university business students, corporate workplaces or hospital staff, not among academic staff. The findings of the current research will add to the existing Spirituality at work literature, especially in the area of the academic workplace. Positive and negative implications of Spirituality at work are worth identifying for the benefit of Human Resource Management programs, not only in universities, but perhaps other organisations. Aims of the study This project aims to explore Spirituality at work and its relationship with Well-being, Job stress and Work-life balance amongst Australian university academics. The study also aims to study academic level (ie tutor, lecturer, academic head) and academic duties (ie teaching, research) and their relationships with Spirituality at work, Job stress, Well-being and Work-life balance. The research findings will also explore the implications for Human Resource Managers in organisations and universities. Academics from all disciplines and universities will be invited to participate in the study. Project interests This research is being conducted by a student to fulfil the requirements of Master of Business (by research) degree under the supervision of Dr. Diana Rajendran and Dr. Steven Theiler from Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of Higher Education, Lilydale. What will participation involve?

174

The survey includes a series of questions about Spirituality at work, Work-life balance, Well-being, Job stress and demographic details. The survey is estimated to take 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Free Consent and Withdrawal from Participation If you decide to participate, please be aware that you can stop completing the survey anytime if you wish. If any stress is experienced during completion of the survey, Swinburne staff can contact the university counsellor (ph: 9215 7101) and staff from other universities can contact Life Line (ph: 13 11 14) for free counselling. Privacy & Confidentiality All data collected from the anonymous survey will be confidentially maintained and securely stored by the supervisor at the Faculty of Higher Education, Lilydale. Data collected for the purposes of the study will only be accessible to researchers involved and will be destroyed after a period of 5 years. Completing the survey and returning it (either online or in hard copy) implies that you have freely consented to participate. Research output In addition to presentation in a thesis, group data collected from the current research may be submitted as an article in a refereed journal / conference paper for publication. Group data may also be used for further research purposes. Participants may contact the investigator for a summary of results when the research is complete. You are reminded that participation is voluntary and anonymous. For further information Please do not hesitate to contact Amanda S. Bell Contact Address: Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Higher Education Mail L100 Locked bag 218 Lilydale Victoria, 3140 Tel No: 03 9215 7144 Email: [email protected] Concerns or complaints

This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact:

Research Ethics Officer, Office of Research & Graduate Studies (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

175

Demographics

Please fill in the blanks and check boxes where appropriate.

1. Age ________ years

2. Gender � Male � Female

3. Marital status (Check one) � Married

� De facto

� Single

� Widowed

� Separated

4. How many Children do you have? (Check one)

0

1

2

3 or more

5. Country of birth _____________________________

6. Highest academic teaching level (Check one)

� Tutor

� Lecturer

� Senior Lecturer

� Reader

� Associate Professor

� Professor

� Academic Head

� Other (Please specify) ____________________

7. Academic duties (Check one)

� Teaching only

� Research only

� Teaching and research

� Administrative

� Other (Please specify) ____________________

8. Number of years employed in an academic position ______________________________

9. Discipline/ School/ Faculty __________________________________________________

10. Number of work contact hours per week _________________ (approximately)

11. Currently employed at an

(Check one) � Urban university

� Non-urban university

12. Currently employed at a

(Check one) � Private university

� Non-private university

176

Spirituality at work Scales

Please read each statement below and circle a number from 1 to 7 to indicate the extent to

which you disagree or agree with the statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly

disagree

Strongly

agree

1. I experience joy in work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. My spirit is energised by work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. The work I do is connected to

what I think is important in life

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I look forward to coming to

work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I see a connection between

work and social good

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I understand what gives my

work personal meaning

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The next set of questions asks you to reflect on the department or faculty of which you are

part of. Please read each statement below and circle a number from 1 to 7 to indicate the

extent to which you disagree or agree with the statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly disagree Strongly

agree

7. Working cooperatively with

others is valued

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I feel part of a community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. I believe people support each

other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I feel free to express my

opinions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I think employees are linked

with a common purpose

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. I believe employees genuinely

care about each other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I feel there is a sense of being a

part of

a family

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

177

The next set of questions asks you to reflect on the university campus of which your

department or faculty is part of. Please read each statement below and circle a number

from 1 to 7 to indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly

disagree

Strongly

agree

14. I feel positive about the values

of the organisation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. This organisation is concerned

about the poor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. This organisation cares about all

its employees

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. This organisation has a

conscience

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. I feel connected with the

organisation’s goals

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. This organisation is concerned

about the health of employees

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. I feel connected with the mission

of the organisation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. This organisation cares about

whether my spirit is energised

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Work-life balance scale

The following statements describe your ability to simultaneously juggle the demands of

your personal and work lives. Please use the following scale to indicate your opinion next

to each statement by circling the corresponding number.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly disagree Strongly

agree

1. It is easy for me to balance the

demands of my work and my

personal life

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I have sufficient time away from

my job to maintain adequate work

and personal life balance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. When I take a holiday I am able

to separate myself from work and

enjoy myself

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

178

4. All in all, I feel extremely

successful in balancing my work

and personal life

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Often I feel drained when I go

home from work because of work

pressures and problems

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Conflict between work and family

The following statements describe your ability to balance the demands of your personal

and work lives. Please read each statement below and circle a number from 1 to 7 to

indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Totally

disagree

Totally

agree

1. I feel torn between my hectic

work schedule and caring for my

family and friends

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. My career, or job affects the

quality of my personal life

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Finding time to relax is difficult

for me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. My need to work keeps me from

my family and friends more than I

would like

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. My work often disrupts other

parts of my life

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Overwork, and stress, caused by

a need to achieve on the job

affects/hurts my life

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

179

Multidimensional Health States Scale

Listed below are various physical and mental states which people sometimes experience.

Think about your own recent experiences and circle the number which indicates the extent

of your experience of each health state in the past month.

1. Friendly 0 1 2 3 4 5

2. Sociable 0 1 2 3 4 5

3. Cheerful 0 1 2 3 4 5

4. Enthusiastic 0 1 2 3 4 5

5. Agile 0 1 2 3 4 5

6. Physically fit 0 1 2 3 4 5

7. Active 0 1 2 3 4 5

8. Strong 0 1 2 3 4 5

9. Calm 0 1 2 3 4 5

10. Relaxed 0 1 2 3 4 5

11. Content 0 1 2 3 4 5

12. Satisfied 0 1 2 3 4 5

13. Efficient 0 1 2 3 4 5

14. Alert 0 1 2 3 4 5

15. Competent 0 1 2 3 4 5

16. Confident 0 1 2 3 4 5

17. Capable 0 1 2 3 4 5

18. Sensual 0 1 2 3 4 5

19. Affectionate 0 1 2 3 4 5

20. Attractive 0 1 2 3 4 5

21. Miserable 0 1 2 3 4 5

22. Gloomy 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5

Not

experienced

Strongly

experienced

180

23. Sad 0 1 2 3 4 5

24. Depressed 0 1 2 3 4 5

25. Trouble sleeping 0 1 2 3 4 5

26. Tense 0 1 2 3 4 5

27. Nervous 0 1 2 3 4 5

28. Worried 0 1 2 3 4 5

29. Uptight 0 1 2 3 4 5

30. Indecisive 0 1 2 3 4 5

31. Backache 0 1 2 3 4 5

32. Muscle pain 0 1 2 3 4 5

33. Headache 0 1 2 3 4 5

34. Indigestion 0 1 2 3 4 5

35. Abdominal pain 0 1 2 3 4 5

181

The Stress in general scale

Do you find your job stressful? For each of the following words and/or phrases, please

circle 3 for ‘yes’ if it describes your job, 0 for ‘no’ if it does not describe your job, or 1.5 for

‘Not sure’ if you cannot decide.

No Not sure Yes

0 1.5 3

1. Demanding 0 1.5 3

2. Pressured 0 1.5 3

3. Hectic 0 1.5 3

4. Calm 0 1.5 3

5. Relaxed 0 1.5 3

6. Many things stressful 0 1.5 3

7. Pushed 0 1.5 3

8. Irritating 0 1.5 3

9. Under control 0 1.5 3

10. Nerve-wracking 0 1.5 3

11. Hassled 0 1.5 3

12. Comfortable 0 1.5 3

13. More stressful than I’d like 0 1.5 3

14. Smooth running 0 1.5 3

15. Overwhelming 0 1.5 3

Thank-you for your time!

182

Appendix B - Ethics Approval

From: Keith Wilkins

To: Amanda Bell; Diana Rajendran

CC: Anne Cain; Barbara Kompe

Date: Thursday - November 15, 2007 12:27 PM

Subject: SUHREC Project 0708/076 Ethics Clearance

To: Dr Diana Rajendran/Ms Amanda Bell, FHEL

Dear Diana and Amanda

SUHREC Project 0708/076 Spirituality in Australian universities: relationship with

work balance, job stress and well-being amongst academic staff

Dr Diane Rajendran FHEL Ms Amanda Suzanne Bell

Approved Duration: 9 /11/2007 To 30/03/2009

I refer to the ethical review of the above project carried out on behalf of Swinburne's

Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) by a SUHREC Subcommittee

(SHESC3). Your responses to the review as emailed on 16 October and 1 November

2007 (with some modification to the project protocols) were considered by the

Subcommittee. I also note your acceptance today of a separate suggestion on consent

info statement text on privacy and anonymity/confidentiality.

I am pleased to advise that ethics clearance has been given for the project to proceed

in line with standard on-going ethics clearance conditions here outline.

- All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to

Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the current National

Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans and with respect to

secure data use, retention and disposal.

- The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any

personnel appointed to or associated with the project being made aware of ethics

clearance conditions, including research and consent procedures or instruments

approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor requires timely notification and

SUHREC endorsement.

- The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf

of SUHREC. Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require

prior ethical appraisal/ clearance. SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon

as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants

183

and any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen

events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project.

- At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as

at the conclusion (or abandonment) of the project.

- A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any

time.

Please contact me if you have any concerns or queries about on-going ethics

clearance. The SUHREC project number should be cited in communication.

Best wishes for the project.

Yours sincerely

Keith Wilkins for

Secretary, SHESC3

*******************************************

Keith Wilkins

Research Ethics Officer

Swinburne Research (H68)


P O Box 218

HAWTHORN VIC 3122

Tel: 9214 5218

184

Appendix C - Detailed Participant Information

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Male 58 41.7 42.0 42.0

Female 80 57.6 58.0 100.0

Valid

Total 138 99.3 100.0

Missing -1 1 .7

Total 139 100.0

Marital status


Cumulative

Percent

Married 69 49.6 49.6 49.6

De facto 29 20.9 20.9 70.5

Single 28 20.1 20.1 90.6

Widowed 1 .7 .7 91.4

Separated 12 8.6 8.6 100.0

Valid

Total 139 100.0 100.0

Number of children


Cumulative

Percent

0 children 58 41.7 42.0 42.0

1 child 24 17.3 17.4 59.4

2 children 34 24.5 24.6 84.1

3 or more children 22 15.8 15.9 100.0

Valid

Total 138 99.3 100.0

Missing -1 1 .7

Total 139 100.0

185

Country of birth coded


Cumulative

Percent

Australia 98 70.5 71.0 71.0

Canada 2 1.4 1.4 72.5

Fiji 1 .7 .7 73.2

Germany 3 2.2 2.2 75.4

India 1 .7 .7 76.1

Italy 2 1.4 1.4 77.5

Malaysia 2 1.4 1.4 79.0

New Zealand 4 2.9 2.9 81.9

Norway 3 2.2 2.2 84.1

Republic of Korea 1 .7 .7 84.8

Scotland 2 1.4 1.4 86.2

Spain 1 .7 .7 87.0

Sri Lanka 1 .7 .7 87.7

The Netherlands 5 3.6 3.6 91.3

Tibet 1 .7 .7 92.0

UK 6 4.3 4.3 96.4

USA 3 2.2 2.2 98.6

Uzbekistan 1 .7 .7 99.3

Wales 1 .7 .7 100.0

Valid

Total 138 99.3 100.0

Missing -1 1 .7

Total 139 100.0

Highest academic teaching level


Cumulative

Percent

Tutor 31 22.3 23.3 23.3

Lecturer 59 42.4 44.4 67.7

Senior Lecturer 23 16.5 17.3 85.0

Associate Professor 5 3.6 3.8 88.7

Professor 4 2.9 3.0 91.7

Academic Head 1 .7 .8 92.5

other 10 7.2 7.5 100.0

Valid

Total 133 95.7 100.0

Missing -1 6 4.3

Total 139 100.0

186

Academic duties


Cumulative

Percent

Teaching only 32 23.0 23.0 23.0

Research only 21 15.1 15.1 38.1

Teaching and research 77 55.4 55.4 93.5

Administrative 4 2.9 2.9 96.4

other 5 3.6 3.6 100.0

Valid

Total 139 100.0 100.0

Urban or non-urban university


Cumulative

Percent

Urban university 114 82.0 82.0 82.0

non-urban university 25 18.0 18.0 100.0

Valid

Total 139 100.0 100.0

Private or non-private university


Cumulative

Percent

Private 14 10.1 10.3 10.3

non-private 122 87.8 89.7 100.0

Valid

Total 136 97.8 100.0

Missing System 3 2.2

Total 139 100.0

187

Faculty


Cumulative

Percent

Art 1 .7 .7 .7

Arts, hospitality and

sciences 2 1.4 1.5 2.2

Business 23 16.5 16.9 19.1

Child and family studies 1 .7 .7 19.9

Christian studies 2 1.4 1.5 21.3

Design 5 3.6 3.7 25.0

Education 9 6.5 6.6 31.6

Engineering and industrial

sciences 10 7.2 7.4 39.0

Health 7 5.0 5.1 44.1

Higher Education 8 5.8 5.9 50.0

Information &

communication technologies 8 5.8 5.9 55.9

Information resources 1 .7 .7 56.6

Information technology

services management 2 1.4 1.5 58.1

Institute for research LSS 1 .7 .7 58.8

International centre 1 .7 .7 59.6

Language 1 .7 .7 60.3

Language and academic

skills program 4 2.9 2.9 63.2

Law 2 1.4 1.5 64.7

Multiple schools 1 .7 .7 65.4

National institute of circus

arts 1 .7 .7 66.2

Regional development 1 .7 .7 66.9

Science 6 4.3 4.4 71.3

Social science 30 21.6 22.1 93.4

Social Work 2 1.4 1.5 94.9

Sustainability 1 .7 .7 95.6

TAFE 3 2.2 2.2 97.8

Writing 3 2.2 2.2 100.0

Valid

Total 136 97.8 100.0

Missing -1 3 2.2

Total 139 100.0

Documents

The buffering effects of spirituality at work: an investigation of job stress, health … · 2017. 2. 15. · Job threat stress significantly predicted decreased well-being and increased